Judgment : Heard Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Shri Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor, and Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondents. Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel assisted the Prosecution. 2. The application for bail filed by the Applicant on the ground that he was aggrieved by an Order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Bail Application no. 68/2012 whereby, the bail application filed by the Applicant came to be rejected. It is the contention of the Applicant that the Applicant has been arrested by the police attached to the Anti Corruption Branch on 06.03.2012 at 10.45 hours in Crime No. RC 3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa, for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 21 (b) and 22(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, (herein after referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). It is further the contention of the Applicant that he was the Investigating Officer and the First Informant in Anti Narcotic Police Station in Crime no. 5/2010, which was registered on 21.02.2010 and in the process of such investigation, the Applicant had arrested one David Driham alias Dudu under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(b) and 22(c) of the said NDPS Act. It is further the case of the Applicant that information was received by the Applicant on 21.02.2010 that one David @ Dudu being a drug peddler, will be coming near St. Anthony's Chapel, Anjuna, and, consequently, the Applicant secured the presence of two panch witnesses and they were introduced to the raiding party at the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station and after complying with the formalities, according to the Applicant, the said Dudu was apprehended in a Santro car and a recovery was made of 144 Ecstasy tablets, which were weighed and found to be 55 grams. Out of the 144 tablets, 20 tablets were removed as a sample, 10 of while colour and 10 of sky blue tablets. These 20 tablets weighed 7.90 grams. It is further his case that the said tablets were duly sealed in polythene bags. The remaining 124 tablets weighing 47.10 grams were again put in an auto press polythene bags and sealed. Another bag containing while powder was also recovered from the said Dudu and tested to be cocaine and found to weigh 6.5 grams which was also sealed. It is further his case that the said tablets were duly sealed in polythene bags. The remaining 124 tablets weighing 47.10 grams were again put in an auto press polythene bags and sealed. Another bag containing while powder was also recovered from the said Dudu and tested to be cocaine and found to weigh 6.5 grams which was also sealed. It is further the case of the Applicant that another while powder in another polythene bag was recovered from the pant pocket of the said Dudu which was claimed to be Heroin and was confirmed by the Field Testing Kit. The said white powder was found to be weighing 5 grams. Thereafter, another liquid substance was also recovered and confirmed to be LSD which weighed 7.30 grams. All these substances were duly sealed. It is further his contention that on the searches made to the Santro Vehicle, they recovered charas from polythene bags weighed 1.165 kgs out of which 40 grams was removed and put in polythene bags and the remaining charas was duly sealed. It is further his case that the panchanama was thereafter drawn and duly signed by the panch witnesses. It is further his case that the said Dudu had applied for bail on various occasions before the NDPS Court, at Mapusa though such applications came to be rejected. It is further the case of the Applicant that pursuant to a Public Interest Litigation no. 2 of 2011, this Court handed over the investigation of crime no. 3/2011, no. 16/2010 of Crime Branch and crime no. 5/2010 of ANC Police Station to the CBI. It is to be noted that even crime no. 5/2010 which is subject matter of the present investigation was also referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation in accordance with law. It is further the case of the Applicant that a chargesheet has been filed against the said Dudu before the NDPS Court of Mapusa on 13.12.2010 in said Crime no. 5/2010. It is further his case that after the matter was referred to the CBI, the case was registered as RC No. 3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa. It is further the contention of the Applicant that the panch witnesses Shri Taslim Arif was called to the CBI Office and during the interrogation, the said witness was abused and made to sit on the floor. 5/2010. It is further his case that after the matter was referred to the CBI, the case was registered as RC No. 3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa. It is further the contention of the Applicant that the panch witnesses Shri Taslim Arif was called to the CBI Office and during the interrogation, the said witness was abused and made to sit on the floor. It is further his case that another panch witness was called on 18.08.2011 and asked to send his family members for inquiry at the CBI Office. It is further his case that the Applicant was called on 14.08.2011 on his Mobile number at about 12.18 hours and asked to come to the CBI Office for inquiry. It is further his case that thereafter he approached the CBI Office to hand over a letter making some grievances against the Investigation Officer. The Applicant has thereafter stated that some witnesses were called to the CBI Office and, according to him, they were abused. It is further the contention of the Applicant that even NC complaints were lodged by the persons who were called as witnesses by the CBI for investigation. Ultimately, the Applicant came to be arrested on 06.03.2012 for being charged under the aforesaid provisions of law. It is further the contention of the Applicant that he has been falsely implicated by the Respondents and that he is not involved in any crime as alleged by the Respondents and according to him, he is entitled for bail. 3. The Respondents filed their reply opposing the said applicant. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Applicant had booked the said Dudu on 21/22nd of February, 2010, for possession of commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the Applicant was also caught on camera while demanding and accepting cash and valuables from the sister and girlfriend of the said Dudu. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the investigations revealed that the panch witnesses who had signed the search panchanama dated 21/22-2-2010, had never accompanied the ANC team led by the Applicant. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the panch witnesses had signed the sealed exhibit only on 22.02.2010 at about 10.00 hours in the office of the Dy.SP ANC Goa, under coercion and promise by the Applicant. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the panch witnesses had signed the sealed exhibit only on 22.02.2010 at about 10.00 hours in the office of the Dy.SP ANC Goa, under coercion and promise by the Applicant. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the Applicant had prepared false records and documents to show that he despatched the information to the Dy.SP at his residence and he had also prepared false records and documents to show that he had arranged panch witnesses. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the Applicant had also prepared false records and documents to show that he got arranged the Field Testing Kit, sealing material, etc., at the time of the search raid. It is further the contention of the Respondents that investigations reveal that the team picked said Dudu from next to his house at Anjuna and there were no panch witnesses with the ANC team. It is further their case that investigations reveal that the Applicant used his influence to instigate and influence witnesses not to co-operate with the CBI investigations. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the investigation is at a crucial stage and they are at the verge of exploring and unraveling the Applicant in the crimes which are under investigation. In the course of investigations, the Respondents contend that they have examined 50 witnesses and that investigations revealed that the panchas were brain washed through fear of perjury at the instance of the Applicant. It is further their contention that the Applicant is deliberately refused to take part in the investigations with the CBI. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the panch witnesses and other crucial chance witnesses had their statements recorded before the learned J.M.F.C., under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the Applicant is influencing prospective witnesses coming forth to depose against him and many witnesses have stated under Section 161 Cr.PC that the complaints filed by them against the Investigation Officer were instigated by the Applicant. It is further the contention of the Respondents that investigations of CBI is at crucial stage and on the verge of making a breakthrough to ascertain the source of said drugs. It is further the contention of the Respondents that investigations of CBI is at crucial stage and on the verge of making a breakthrough to ascertain the source of said drugs. The reply came to be filed by the Respondents in May, 2012 and, as such, the Respondents pointed out that the application for bail deserves to be rejected. 4. During the course of the hearing of the above application, an application came to be filed on behalf of said Dudu for intervention. The application was moved before the learned Vacation Judge and the matter was posted for hearing in the month of June, 2012, when Advocate Shri Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the Applicant and in the course of his submissions, it became necessary that the Respondents be called upon to produce material to substantiate their contentions in view of the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel. Subsequently, after some adjournments, the material was placed on record by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The matter was thereafter being heard by this Court but, in the meanwhile, the learned Advocate for the intervenor pressed for hearing of his application first. Another application was filed by the said Dudu claiming that he was the victim and seeking permission to assist the prosecution. Ultimately, the applications were heard by this Court and the same were disposed of by an Order dated 25.07.2012. The application for intervention was rejected but, however, permission was granted to the learned Advocate of said Dudu though without accepting that he was a victim to assist the prosecution as the learned Special Public Prosecutor had no objection to that effect. The matter was thereafter heard extensively at the instance of the Applicant and the Respondents. 5. Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, in support of the application for bail, has raised three main contentions. The first contentions according to the learned Counsel is that there is no FIR lodged in the present case and, as such, the CBI is not entitled to proceed with the investigations. The next contention of the learned Counsel is that the offences punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is bailable and, as such, according to him, there are no ingredients to implicate the Applicant under Section 20 (b)(ii) and all other Sections under the NDPS Act. The next contention of the learned Counsel is that the offences punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is bailable and, as such, according to him, there are no ingredients to implicate the Applicant under Section 20 (b)(ii) and all other Sections under the NDPS Act. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the question of invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not arise in the present case as, according to him, the alleged drugs were not recovered from the possession of the Applicant. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as there was no panchanama drawn to disclose that any of such drugs or psychotropic substances were recovered from the Applicant, the question of implicating the Applicant in the crimes under the NDPS Act, would not arise. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as chargesheet has been filed against the said Accused Dudu, the evidence which is sought to be brought forward by the Respondents, would nullify the evidence in support of the chargesheet and would amount to fresh investigations. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that said Dudu has already been released on bail and further that after the Applicant was arrested, within a period of ten days, the Respondents sought for judicial custody. Learned Counsel has also taken me through the chargesheet filed against the said Dudu and dought to point out that as per the records of the station diary therein, it reveals that at 7.10 houses on the relevant date, the seized drugs were already given to the Head Constable muddemal in charge by the Applicant. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that the Applicant himself had handed over the seized drugs to the Head Constable muddemal in charge. Shri Teles, learned Counsel, has also brought to my notice the reply filed by the Respondents before the learned Sessions Judge and gave more emphasis to what has been stated therein as follows: “...Their individual roles have been mentioned in the panchanama but investigation has revealed that the ANC team headed by Mr. Gudlar and supervised by Shri Veenu Bansal, ws predetermined to arrest Mr. David Driham......It is just at the instance of Mr. Gudlar and Mr. Bansal to settle scores with the IO who dares to investigate the case against their wishes and as per law. Mr. Gudlar and supervised by Shri Veenu Bansal, ws predetermined to arrest Mr. David Driham......It is just at the instance of Mr. Gudlar and Mr. Bansal to settle scores with the IO who dares to investigate the case against their wishes and as per law. Mr. Anand Salunke, HO is the malkhana in-charge who had made false general diary entries for receiving the exhibits at 7.50 hrs as both the panch witnesses had visited the ANC office only after 10.00 hrs.... It is proved technically as well as by the eye witnesses that Mr. Bansal visited Anjuna and briefed Mr. Gudlar before the arrest of Mr. Dudu. He again visited Place of Occurrence that day and without ensuring the recovery, seizure and panchanama formalities he directed the ANC team to get Mr. Dudu at the office of ANC Panaji.....” In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Abdul Rehman & Ors. vs. K. M. Anees-ul-Haq, in the case of Ashok Kumar Todi vs. Kishwar Jahan & ors. , 1198 (5) SCC 223 in the case of K. Chandrashekhar vs. State of Kerala & Ors. and 2005 (5) SCC 294 in the case of RanjitsinghBrahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. The learned Counsel as such submits that the Applicant is entitled for bail and deserves to be released forthwith upon any conditions this Court may impose. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Sections introduced against the Applicant with by retrospective effect in June 2011, are erroneous. 6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Joseph Vaz, has opposed the application for bail. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the Respondents are investigating a serious offence which involves an enormous exercise of investigation of a scientific nature and, as such, any bail to the Applicant would jeopardize the investigations. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further pointed out that as the investigations revealed that the alleged raid had in fact not taken place in the manner as sought to be made out by the Applicant, the drugs which have been recovered which are of a commercial quantity are assumed to be from the Applicant. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further pointed out that as the investigations revealed that the alleged raid had in fact not taken place in the manner as sought to be made out by the Applicant, the drugs which have been recovered which are of a commercial quantity are assumed to be from the Applicant. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the very fact that the Applicant had lodged a initial complaint disclosing that the specific quantity of drugs of a commercial quantity were recovered in the said raid by itself would suggest that the possession of the drugs was with the Applicant as according to the Respondents, investigation revealed that the raid as alleged had not taken place. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has pointed out that considering that the Applicant was involved in a very serious offence and was in possession of a commercial quantity of drugs, the question of granting any bail in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not arise. With regards to the contentions of Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, to the effect that the CBI is not entitled to re-investigate the case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, has pointed out that the investigations which is carried out is the further investigations which is permissible under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has taken me through the Judgment passed by this Court whilst referring the matter for investigation to the CBI and pointed out that this Court was conscious of the existence of the crime case no. 5/2010 which was taken for further investigations after they were handed over to the CBI. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the CBI is in the process of investigating the persons having influential position and, as such, the investigations are to be carried out in a more diligent and appropriate manner. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has further pointed out that the Respondents have made out a case that the Applicant was found in possession of a commercial quantity of drugs and, as such, not invoking of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would not arise. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has further pointed out that the Respondents have made out a case that the Applicant was found in possession of a commercial quantity of drugs and, as such, not invoking of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would not arise. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has further taken me through the reply filed on record and pointed out that there are specific instances stated therein by the Applicant that the Applicant has been interfering with the investigations and even instigating the witnesses not to interfere with the prosecution. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, as such submits that the question of granting any bail to the Applicant at this stage would not arise and the above application deserves to be rejected. In support of his submissions, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1980(2) SCC 559 in the case of NiranjanSingh & anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1613 in the case of ShahzadHasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & anr., 2001 SCC (Criminal) 1124 in the case of Puranvs. Rambilas & anr., 2000 (9) SCC 382 in the case of Union of India through Central Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner vs. Aharwa Deen and 2000 (9) SCC 221 in the case of Union of India vs. Ikram Khan & Ors. 7. Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel, has also filed his synopsis assisting the prosecution. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and I have also gone through the synopsis filed by Shri J. D' Souza, the learned Counsel assisting the prosecution. For the purpose of deciding the above application, I shall deal with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties to the extent essential for considering the bail application. 9. The first contention of learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant is that the Respondents are carrying out re-investigation of Crime case no. 5/2010. On perusal of the Order of the Division Bench of this Court, referring the investigation to the CBI, I find that there is reference made therein to Crime case no. 5/2010. It is also not in dispute that after the matter was directed to be investigated by the CBI, the FIR was registered by the CBI. 5/2010. On perusal of the Order of the Division Bench of this Court, referring the investigation to the CBI, I find that there is reference made therein to Crime case no. 5/2010. It is also not in dispute that after the matter was directed to be investigated by the CBI, the FIR was registered by the CBI. Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code inter alia provides that nothing in the Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigations in respect of an offence when a report under sub-section (ii) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Hence, taking note of the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court directing the investigations in the present case, I find that the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Respondents are re-investigating the case, cannot be accepted. There is power as such to carry out investigations in respect of an offence for which the FIR had already been lodged. The power of the Investigating Officer to make further investigations in exercise of its statutory jurisdiction under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. should be considered in a different context. Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision which permits further investigations which is being carried out in the present case. Prima facie, it appears that CBI is carrying out further investigations in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the first contention of Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant on that count cannot be accepted. 10. The next contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant to the effect that the evidence which has been recorded could nullify the evidence which had been produced in support of the chargesheet also cannot be considered at this stage of the investigation. The investigations are in progress and, as such, it cannot be accepted at this stage that the investigation which is being pursued by the CBI would nullify the evidence in support of the chargesheet as filed before the learned NDPS Court. 11. The contention of Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, to the effect that the offences under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code are bailable, is accepted. 11. The contention of Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, to the effect that the offences under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code are bailable, is accepted. But the fact to be considered is whether on the basis of the material on record, there is any offence which can be attributed to the Applicant punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) , 21 (b) and 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. In order to consider the said aspect, it would be appropriate to note Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, which reads thus: “20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.-Whoever, in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,- (a) … (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis shall be punishable- (i) ... (ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),- (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees). 12. On plain reading, the said provisions of the NDPS Act, what would be material to attract punishment is whether the drugs involved in the present proceedings were of commercial quantity and whether the Respondents have established that the Applicant was in possession or was using the same. “Use” is defined under Section 2 (xxviiia) of the NDPS Act, to mean any kind of use except personal consumption. It is not in dispute that the drugs involved in the present case specially charas and LSD were of a commercial quantity. “Use” is defined under Section 2 (xxviiia) of the NDPS Act, to mean any kind of use except personal consumption. It is not in dispute that the drugs involved in the present case specially charas and LSD were of a commercial quantity. As such, the only aspect to be considered is to ascertain whether the Respondents at this stage have established that the said drugs were used by the Applicant and/or were in his possession. 13. In the present case, the Respondents have recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. With the assisting of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, I have gone through the relevant case diary records of the Respondents. On perusal thereof, I find that, prima facie, there is material on record that the Applicant used the said drugs for the purpose other than for his personal consumption. Reading the provisions of Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, I find that prima facie, there is material to suggest such user as the Applicant himself had informed that commercial quantity of drugs were recovered, the reference to the Applicant of handing over the drugs to the Head Constable (muddemal) as pointed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and considering the material as recorded in the case diary. Hence, prima facie, the Respondents have been in position to establish the possession and user of the drugs by the Applicant. As such, one will have to consider whether in such circumstances, the Applicant would be entitled for bail. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, clearly provides 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. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.” 14. On going through the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I find that there is an embargo to grant bail if the offence involves Section 20(b)(ii)(C), which speaks about commercial quantity. Taking note of the fact that the drugs involved in the present case are of commercial quantity, I find that the embargo in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would not entitle the Applicant for bail at this stage. It is to be noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act starts with a non-obstante clause and, as such, no person accused for an offence prescribed therein, shall be released on bail unless the conditions contained therein are satisfied. Consequently, the power to grant bail under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are necessarily subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The legislature has made very strict provisions for releasing an accused on bail by specially enacting the said provisions. Hence, there is a statutory bar to grant bail to an accused unless his case is covered under the provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In such circumstances, any latches, if any, pointed out by Shri G. Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, would not come in the way of invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act to hold that the Applicant is not entitled for bail. As observed earlier, prima facie, the Respondents have established possession and/or use of a commercial quantity of drugs by the Applicant other than use for personal consumption which is an offence within the meaning of Section 20(b)(ii) and (C) of the NDPS Act. 15. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 in the case of Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul, has held at paras 12 and 13 thus: “12. 15. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 in the case of Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul, has held at paras 12 and 13 thus: “12. It is plain from a bare reading of the non obstante clause in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and sub-section (2) thereof that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is also subject to the restrictions placed by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz. (I) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is manifest that the conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being guilty, has to be based on 'reasonable grounds'. 13. The expression 'reasonable grounds' has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence (vide Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari). Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act.” 16. The Apex Court in the Judgment in the case of NiranjanSingh & anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors., (supra), has held at para 4 thus: “Grant of bail is within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge but the court must not, in grave cases, gullibly dismiss the possibility of police-accused intimidating the witnesses with cavalier case. The Apex Court in the Judgment in the case of NiranjanSingh & anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors., (supra), has held at para 4 thus: “Grant of bail is within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge but the court must not, in grave cases, gullibly dismiss the possibility of police-accused intimidating the witnesses with cavalier case. In our country, intimidation by policemen, when they are themselves accused of offences, is not an unknown phenomenon and the judicial process will carry credibility with the community only if it views impartially and with common sense the pros and cons, undettered by the psychic pressure of police presence as inductees.” 17. In the case of ShahzadHasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & anr (supra), the Apex Court has also observed that it is also to be considered whilst deciding the bail application whether the evidence may be tampered with by the Accused. 18. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, I find that no case is made out for bail by the Applicant in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and as the Respondents apprehended that the evidence may be tampered by the Applicant and the witnesses may be intimidated. 19. On perusal of the station diary which I have perused with the assistance of learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents as well as on going through the reply filed by the Respondents, I find that investigations carried out by the Respondents are proceeding at a very slow pace. This Court whilst directing the investigations by the Respondents had shown its anxiety to ensure that the matter is investigated thoroughly taking note of the seriousness of the allegations. Hence, it is expected of the CBI to show urgency and take immediate measures to ensure that the investigations proceed in the proper direction. The CBI should also consider the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court whilst disposing of the Bail application no. 116/2010 which has also been noted by the Division Bench of this Court whilst directing the investigations. Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, has also brought to my notice the reply filed by the Respondents before the learned Sessions Judge, which is referred to herein above. 116/2010 which has also been noted by the Division Bench of this Court whilst directing the investigations. Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, has also brought to my notice the reply filed by the Respondents before the learned Sessions Judge, which is referred to herein above. Though reference has been made to some Officers therein, I find no appreciable investigation carried out in that direction by the Respondents. Though Shri Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that the investigations on that aspect is also proceeding in a phase manner, I am not at all impressed that the Respondents are taking urgent steps to comply with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in the Order dated 04.03.2011 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 2/2011. The Respondents should proceed with the investigations with more seriousness to ensure that the investigations are completed expeditiously. 20. The Judgments relied upon by Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, referred to herein above are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the above case taking note of the findings arrived at by this Court as referred to herein above. 21. In the case of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. (supra), the Apex Court was dealing under Section 3(2) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime, Act, 1999 and found that the conclusions of the High Court that the Applicant had, prima faice, committed the offence were not entirely correct. Hence, the said Judgment would not be applicable to the present case considering the findings rendered herein cannot be said that prima facie,t here are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant is not guilty. The Judgment in the case of Abdul Rehman & Ors. vs. K. M. Aneesul-Haq, (supra) is also not applicable as the matter is still under investigations by the Respondents. The Judgment in the case of K. Chandrashekhar vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (supra), is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Respondents are carrying out further investigations under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 22. The Judgment in the case of K. Chandrashekhar vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (supra), is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Respondents are carrying out further investigations under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 22. The findings which have been arrived at whilst disposing of the above application are prima facie only for the purpose of considering the bail application and such findings shall not come in the way or influence in deciding any issues in any further proceedings in the case. 23. In view of the above, the above application for bail, stands dismissed.