ORDER : These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 16.03.2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 926/2007, 885/2007, 1183/2006 and 2164/2006. The appellants were all proceeded against and convicted for the offence under Section 36B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act). They were imposed with sentence of ten year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 20B(ii) of the said Act. 2. When these appeals were entertained and the leave was granted on 17.07.2009, 7.9.2009 and 11.1.2010 respectively. Taking into account the sentence already undergone by the appellants, namely, nine years out of ten years, bail was granted on 17.7.2009, 9.10.2009 and 11.1.2010 respectively to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 3. Today, when these appeals were taken up, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat submitted that the prosecuting agency in the case on hand was Narcotic Control Bureau (for short NCB) and not the State of Gujarat and that even before the High Court the Special Public Prosecutor appeared and in the High Court also the respondents shown in the Criminal Appeal Nos.926/2007 and 1183/2006 was the Intelligence Officer and another and in the other two matters in the High Court i.e. Crl. A. No. 2164/2006 and 885/2007 NCB was shown as Respondent No.2. 4. In such circumstances, in these appeals by special leave NCB should have been arrayed as a respondent. Since, only the State of Gujarat was shown as respondent in these appeals notice was issued only to the State of Gujarat on 15.5.2009, 7.9.2009 and 16.11.2009 respectively and subsequently when leave was granted on 17.07.2009, 7.9.2009 and 11.01.2010 respectively only State of Gujarat was represented before us. 5. When we refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act it is stipulated therein that before considering grant of bail, the Public Prosecutor should be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release on bail and in the event of Public Prosecutor opposing the application only if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the alleged accused was not guilty of such offence and also not likely to commit any crime during the bail, the grant of bail can be considered. The limitations prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail are in addition to the limitations under the provisions of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. 6. Since there was no representation on behalf of the NCB on 17.7.2009 before us, inasmuch as the said default occurred solely due to the failure of the appellants in not having arrayed NCB as a party respondent, even though NCB was very much party before the High Court as well as the Trial Court, we find that there was no scope for this Court to apply the limitations in grant of bail as has been stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In that process, we find that the appellants were granted bail and such benefit accrued to them due to their failure to array necessary party, namely, the NCB in these appeals. 7. Therefore, even while directing the appellants to implead NCB as a party respondent at this juncture, we are of the view that the appellants should be directed to surrender forthwith before the Trial Court and once NCB enters appearance they will be allowed to raise their objections to the grant of bail and thereafter if there is any scope for granting bail necessary orders can be passed. We, therefore, direct the appellants to take necessary steps by filing appropriate applications for impleading NCB as a party respondent in these appeals and in the meanwhile surrender forthwith before the Trial Court and file a proof of surrender within four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. 8. List these appeals after the compliance of the above directions.