JUDGMENT 1. - This is second bail application of the accused petitioner. The first bail application came to be dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was granted of filing fresh bail application after framing of charge vide order dated 17.08.2012. 2. The charge was finally framed against the accused petitioner for offence u/S.8/25 of NDPS Act and as against other co-accused for offence u/S.8/20 of the Act. 3. Counsel for accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has been charged u/S.8/25 of the Act and against the calender of witnesses of 11 persons only four have been examined so far and he is facing incarceration almost for two years by now and he has been booked on account of his confessional statement recorded u/S.67 of the Act and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2013 X AD (SC) 440 and submits that in the light of the judgment (supra) at least the confessional statement of the petitioner should not be taken on its face value and his incarceration is not going to serve any purpose as the only evidence against him, for which he has been implicated, being the registered owner of the vehicle, as alleged, used for carrying the contraband (charas) and submits that trial may take its own time. 4. Special Public Prosecutor while opposing bail application submits that apart from confessional statement of the petitioner recorded u/S.67 of Act, there are cogent material available on record which would connect accused petitioner with commission of crime and 45 Kg of contraband (charas) was recovered and he being the registered owner of the vehicle certainly responsible for the alleged incident and further submits that it has come on record during the course of investigation that when the vehicle was seized there was a couch in the vehicle which must have been created to carry the contraband item and trial is going on expeditiously, since four witnesses have already been examined and three, as informed to him, are going to be examined on 13.01.2014. 5. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and after taking note of the submissions made, this court does not find any material change in circumstances and without expressing any opinion on merits, is not inclined to grant indulgence of post arrest bail to the accused petitioner, however, considers it appropriate to direct the learned Trial Judge to expedite the trial. 6. Consequently, the instant second bail application filed by the accused petitioner Mohammad Khurshid stands dismissed.Bail application dismissed. *******