JUDGMENT : 1. This is 2nd bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 1/2010 registered at Police Station C.B.N., Neemuch for the commission of the alleged offence punishable under sections 8/18 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court on 17-2-2011 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 169/2011. It is submitted that petitioner is in jail w.e.f. 23-4-2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner was found in possession of 6.240 Kgs. of opium. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in jail w.e.f. 23-4-2010. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that in view of section 37 of the NDPS Act, the grant of bail is exception. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of State of M. P. vs. Kajad, 2001 SCC (Cri) 1520 wherein the accused was found in possession of 7 Kgs opium which was seized from him, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that section 37 of the NDPS Act enjoins that a person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 37(1). For granting the bail the Court must on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for. 4. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for. 4. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Kesari, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that as section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 itself provides that no person shall be granted bail unless the two conditions are satisfied. They are : the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both the conditions have to be satisfied. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. It was further held that the expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is 'reasonable grounds'. The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Court while considering the application for bail with reference to section 37 of the NDPS Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances keeping in view the position of law, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as under :- 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable. 5. Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as under :- 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable. (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 6. In the matter of Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, reported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522, wherein 5 kg. of opium was recovered from the tubewell house of the respondent, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the legislative mandate contained in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Bill No. 125 of 1988 which culminated in the incorporation of the amended section 37 has to be adhered to and followed. In a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effect and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in section 37(1)(b) are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Hence, the High Court's order has to be set aside. 7. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Hence, the High Court's order has to be set aside. 7. In the matter of Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, reported in 2008 Cr.L.R.(SC) 51, wherein the allegation was of supply of drugs not included in Schedule I and the contention of the accused was drug did not fall under section 24 and being network service provider they were protected under section 79, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that drug included in the psychotropic substances and a person could be held guilty without handling personally and section 79 does not immune from prosecution under the Act, therefore, accused and his associates were not innocent intermediaries or network service providers and business was only a fagade and camouflage for more sinister activity, hence the benefit of bail declined. 8. In the matter of Union of India vs. Ratan Mallik, reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831, wherein the accused was charged with financing and trading in 14.900 Kgs. of heroin and sentenced to ten years RI and fine of ` 1,00,000/- and the High Court allowing the bail application citing reasons that nothing was found from the possession of the accused and he had been in jail since past three years and no chance of his appeal being heard within seven-year period, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that these circumstances not sufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of section 37(1)(b). 9. Keeping in view the provisions of section 37 of NDPS Act and also keeping in view the position of law as developed by the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court it is clear that grant of bail of an accused person for an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more is exception. In a murder case the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effect and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. 10. 10. Before granting the bail Court has to satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 11. In the present case in the petition nothing has been stated that how the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and how it can be believed that petitioner will not likely to commit any offence in future while on bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned Court below explaining full facts how the petitioner has falsely been implicated and also the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and full particulars about members of family and their occupation including the petitioner. If such an application is filed, then the learned Court below shall decide the same in accordance with law keeping in view the principles regarding grant of bail in NDPS cases. 12. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.