1. Investigation of the case registered as FIR No. 123/2009 P/S Pantha Chowk culminated in presenting the charge sheet (challan) for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 NDPS Act as against five accused, namely, Mst. Haseena, Tafazul Khaleel, Javaid Ahmad, Shabir Ahmad Wani and Shahid Farooq. 2. The charge against all the five accused has been framed by the trial court vide its order dated 03.05.2011 for commission of offences punishable under Section 8(c)/20(b)(II)(c) NDPS Act and Section 120-B RPC. During trial, so far, statement of listed witness No. 1 and 3 has been recorded whereas statement of witness No. 7 has been partly recorded. 3. Petition for grant of bail has been filed by Shahid Farooq and Shabir Ahmad Wani (petitioners) but same has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 05.11.2011, hence the instant petition for grant of bail. 4. On 25.09.2011, during routine checking one vehicle (Sumo) bearing registration No. JK03A-8835 was intercepted at Pandrethan, on frisking, one Kg of charas was recovered from the possession of accused Mst. Haseena. In her disclosure statement she has divulged that she is member of an organized group, she has also supplied contraband to Shabir Ahmad and Shahid Farooq (petitioners herein) to the extent of 500 grams each; on such disclosure on the same day they were nabbed at Batamaloo and said contraband was recovered from them. 5. The trial court has reflected in its order of rejection that the accused belong to an organized group who are involved in supplying narcotic to the youngsters and has also noticed the applicability of rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act and then the effect of enlarging such accused on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that so far two prosecution witnesses have been examined who have not connected the accused with the commission of offence. Secondly, only 500 grams of charas like substance has been recovered from the petitioners which is not a commercial quantity, therefore, rigour of Section 37 will not apply. Further added, that by now accused have been in the custody for last more than two years, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. 7. Further learned counsel contended that allegedly pursuant to disclosure of Mst. Further added, that by now accused have been in the custody for last more than two years, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. 7. Further learned counsel contended that allegedly pursuant to disclosure of Mst. Haseena petitioners have been apprehended and from their possession 500 grams of charas like substance has been recovered from each of them, if it be taken like that, quantity recovered does not qualify for commercial quantity because commercial quantity means one kg. 8. The argument is not to be accepted because charge has been framed against all the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 8/20 NDPS Act read with Section 120-B RFC, wherein it has been specifically recorded that the accused belong to an organized group who deal in illegal trade of narcotics, so the recovery of one kg from Mst. Haseena and then on her disclosure 500 grams each from petitioners has to be taken as total, so a commercial quantity. The order framing charge has not been challenged, therefore, at this stage to say that rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable, is without any substance. 9. Contention of the learned counsel that two witnesses so far examined have not connected the accused with the commission of offence, cannot be accepted to be correct nor such evidence, at this stage, is to be commented upon lest trial will get prejudiced. Furthermore, same ground was available when the earlier bail application has been rejected, therefore, petitioners are required to show change in circumstances. The statements of two witnesses and part statement of one witness has been recorded respectively on 17.8.2011, 19.9.2011 and 17.2.2012, therefore, statements of two witnesses have been recorded prior to the order of rejection of bail by the trial court. There is no change in the circumstances so as to persuade the Court to exercise discretion in favour of the accused. 10. Next learned counsel contended that the accused have been in the custody for last two years, therefore, continuous incarceration offends the right to liberty which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. Liberty is precious and accused, until guilt is proved, is presumed to be innocent but every case has its own features, so in the backdrop of particular features, grant of concession of bail has to be considered. 11. Liberty is precious and accused, until guilt is proved, is presumed to be innocent but every case has its own features, so in the backdrop of particular features, grant of concession of bail has to be considered. In the instant case when allegation is that the accused belong to an organized group and pursuant to criminal conspiracy are operating in a manner which is destructive and is to destroy the social fiber, then curtailment of liberty of such persons is reasonable. 12. Even if rigour of Section 37 applies but still if reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence then the concession of bail can be extended. Vice versa in case rigour of Section 37 will not apply but the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that the involvement of the accused is in connection with a heinous offence which has serious impact on the society, then no bail can be granted. While considering larger interests of society and alleged destruction of social environment in the hands of petitioners who are allegedly involved in the sale and supply of narcotic drugs has to be taken serious note of which in turn would disentitle them from claiming concession. 13. Learned counsel next contended that non-compliance to Section 50 of the NDPS Act would entitle the petitioners to the concession of bail but in the facts and circumstances and the manner in which, on the disclosure of accused Mst. Haseena, recovery has been effected, may qualify for being chance recovery, therefore, at this stage said ground is not available. 14. Trial of the case is in progress, to extend any concession of bail will have serious effects on the smooth trial of the case. Viewed from all angles, concession of bail at this stage is impermissible. The trial court is. expected to expedite the trial of the case and shall schedule the case in a manner so that fair and expeditious trial is ensured. 15. It is made clear that in case of prolongation in the trial or change of circumstance i.e. after examination of the material witnesses, it shall be open for the petitioners to apply afresh for grant of bail which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits and shall not be influenced by the earlier rejection order or by the observations made in this order. 16. 16. Bail application accordingly rejected. 17. Trial court record along with copy of the. order be send back forthwith. Shadow file, as produced, be returned to the counsel for the respondents.