ORDER : 1. Genesis of these twin post-arrest bail applications is FIR No.DRI/UZU/JRU/19/INI-4/16 for offence under Sections 8(C), 22(C), 9(A), 25(A), 23(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by a common order. 2. Scorning in detail, the facts relevant and germane to the matter are that a letter dated 26th of October 2016 was received by Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Jaipur from DRI Mumbai. From the letter, it unfurled that huge quantity of Methaqualone tablets were lying in godown No.G-1, 347, Bhamashah Industrial Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur, which was in the name of one Subhash Dudani. Methaqualone, being psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, at Item No.161 in the Schedule, is liable for confiscation, therefore, immediate cognizance of the information was taken by Deputy Director, DRI to jot down a Parcha. In order to unearth truth and expose the drug scandal, a team of officers was constituted which reached the godown. On an intensive search of the godown premises, at some hidden place, huge quantity of Methaqualone tablets weighing 23320 kg were found. The incumbent, Nirmal Dudani, present at the godown, revealed to the team that entire goods lying in the godown including the Methaqualone tablets belonged to his uncle Subhash Dudani. Subsequent to that, residence of Ravi Nirmal and Subhash Dudani were searched and eight accused persons were apprehended under the aforementioned Sections of NDPS Act. With the advent of time, name of petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas also unearthed/surfaced during investigation and consequently he was also interrogated for soliciting informations under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Taking note of the inculpatory statements and revelations of petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas under Section 67 of the NDPS and alleged disclosure of a fact that Methaqualone tablets were manufactured at his proprietorship concern Shrinath Industries, Doinda, Rajsamand, he too was taken into custody by the investigating agency on 4th of November, 2016. During investigation, informations were also solicited from certain other persons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Of late, when investigation progressed, in the month of April 2017, petitioner Gunjan Dudani s/o Subhash Dudani was called and informations were also solicited from him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on 6th of April 2017 and 7th of April 2017 respectively. Thereafter, he was arrested on 8th of April 2017. Of late, when investigation progressed, in the month of April 2017, petitioner Gunjan Dudani s/o Subhash Dudani was called and informations were also solicited from him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on 6th of April 2017 and 7th of April 2017 respectively. Thereafter, he was arrested on 8th of April 2017. After completing investigation, the investigating agency filed chargesheet for the aforesaid offences against eight accused persons including both the petitioners. 3. Summery of arguments on behalf of petitioner Gunjan Dudani by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mahesh Bora:- Petitioner Gunjan Dudani is innocent having no connection with the business activities of main accused his father Subhash Dudani. Acknowledging his relationship with accused Subhash Dudani as biological father and positive assertion about turbulent marital relationship between his mother Smt. Rekha and Subhash Dudani emphasized. Factum of marital discord between them, which eventually led to mutual divorce in the year 1995 coupled with the fact that petitioner pursued his studies in Computer Engineering while living with his mother, stressed. Petitioner was called by his biological father Subhash Dudani in 2006 to undertake the work of computerization in his business of Optical Disc products and trading of Merchandises in Mumbai, Dubai and Hong Kong. Relying on his Income-tax returns, a fact is highlighted that petitioner has not received any financial benefits from the alleged illegal business activities of his father Subhash Dudani. Evidence collected during investigation by the DRI to prima facie nail the petitioner for aforesaid offences are hazy, opaque and falling short of requisite sting of inculpation. Alleged incriminating informations solicited from petitioner by the investigating agency under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible for being not voluntary and elicited under duress and coercion. M/s. Omkar Industries Pvt. Ltd. was not used for manufacturing of Methaqualone. Statements of Rai Singh, Sanjay Ravi Lal Patel and Pinky Jethwani not inspiring confidence. Flagrant violation and non-compliance of mandatory provisions envisaged under Sections 42, 50, 52, 55 & 57 of the NDPS Act. 4. The summery of arguments by Mr. Farzand Ali and Mr. Shivi Sanyam on behalf of petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas :- False implication of petitioner in the matter by DRI on account of certain grudges. Absence of tangible or admissible evidence against petitioner to prove his nexus with the alleged offences. 4. The summery of arguments by Mr. Farzand Ali and Mr. Shivi Sanyam on behalf of petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas :- False implication of petitioner in the matter by DRI on account of certain grudges. Absence of tangible or admissible evidence against petitioner to prove his nexus with the alleged offences. Petitioner is a qualified Chartered Accountant practicing at Mumbai and no illegal or criminal activity much less manufacturing of Methaqualone tablets carried out at M/s. Shrinath Industries, owned by him. Relationship of petitioner with Subhash Dudani were purely professional inasmuch as being his financial consultant petitioner had arranged financial assistance for him from banks and other financial institutions. During search by DRI no incriminating material was recovered from M/s Shrinath Industries. Certain revelations by petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, during his interrogation by DRI, are castigated as inadmissible by applying rigor of Section 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No independent witness to connect petitioner with the alleged crime and even Watchman or any other employee of M/s Shrinath Industries was not examined by the DRI. During interrogation under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on three occasions main accused Subhash Dudani has not named petitioner and allegedly indicted him on fourth occasion. Interrogatory notes/statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not on par with statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and not worth credence due to violation of Section 162 Cr.P.C. Statements are also not akin to recording of confessions or statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. So called inculpatory evidence against the petitioner collected during investigation by DRI is congruous and full of discrepancies. Industrial plot of Doinda, Rajsamand was allotted in the year 2006 to the petitioner for setting up transformer manufacturing unit. 5. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on following judgments :- 1. Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu [Criminal Appeal No.152/2013 dt. 08.10.2013] 2. Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 655]. 3. Raju Prem ji Vs. Custom [Apex Court judgment delivered on 06.05.2007] 4. Nirmal Singh Pahalwan Vs. Inspector Customs [Apex Court Judgment dt. 21.07.2011] 6. Gist of arguments by Mr. Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu [Criminal Appeal No.152/2013 dt. 08.10.2013] 2. Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 655]. 3. Raju Prem ji Vs. Custom [Apex Court judgment delivered on 06.05.2007] 4. Nirmal Singh Pahalwan Vs. Inspector Customs [Apex Court Judgment dt. 21.07.2011] 6. Gist of arguments by Mr. B.P. Bohra, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India :- Case in hand, one of the biggest seizure of psychotropic substance in the Country, is prima facie showing nexus of accused persons with international drug racket. Methaqualone is manufactured by amalgamation of acetic anhydride and anthranilic acid and both are controlled substances within the meaning of Section 9A of the NDPS Act. Accused persons were having no licence for these controlled substances under the aforesaid provision. Petitioner Gunjan Dudani was involved in computerization of the industries owned by his father Subhash Dudani, which includes Omkar Industries, besides Shrinath Industries owned by petitioner Parmeshwas Vyas. Main accused Subhash Dudani and petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas were partners in firm M/s Highseas Trading Corporation, which purchased acetic anhydride plant from M/s Narayan Lal Pvt. Ltd., Navasari, Gujarat for export but the plant was actually commissioned at M/s Omkar Industries, Udaipur. This fact, prima facie, establishes business relations between Subhash Dudani and petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas. The inculpatory revelations of both the petitioners under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be discarded at this stage on the strength of judgments of Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India [ 2008(4) SCC 668 ] and Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics [ 2011(11) SCC 347 ]. High degree of certainty is not to be considered at the stage of examining bail application of an accused, more particularly, when huge recovery of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is involved. Invocation of rigor envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in these two matters is indefeasible keeping in view umpteen times higher then commercial quantity of contraband recovered/seized in the matter. Informations solicited from both the petitioners under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are anterior to their respective arrests by the investigating agency. Therefore, prima facie, these informations/statements are not hit by mischief contained under Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Statements of Rai Singh, Sanjay Ravi Lal Patel, Ms. Informations solicited from both the petitioners under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are anterior to their respective arrests by the investigating agency. Therefore, prima facie, these informations/statements are not hit by mischief contained under Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Statements of Rai Singh, Sanjay Ravi Lal Patel, Ms. Pinky Jethwani, Shanker Lal Meghwal, Rakesh Jain, Sanjay Mistri and Nirmal Dudani are clear and explicit showing involvement of both the petitioners for aforesaid offences. Petitioner Gunjan Dudani received financial benefits in the form of largesses from main accused Subhash Dudani like flat at Mumbai, residential house at Udaipur and Industrial Godown etc. which clearly establishes close proximity between father and son duo. Likewise, petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas was also favoured financially and otherwise by Subhash Dudani, which proves their business nexus. Petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas made an attempt to challenge entire proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR by filing Cr. Misc. Petition No.319/2017 but the same has been dismissed on 21st of February, 2017. While dismissing the said petition, Court prima facie observed that he was business associate of Subhash Dudani. 7. Mr. Bohra in support of his arguments has placed reliance on following judgments :- 1. Ram Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics [ (2011) 11 SCC 347 ]. 2. Kanhaiya Lal vs. Union of India [ (2008) 4 SCC 668 ]. 3. Rajkumar Karwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ (1990) 2 SCC 409 ]. 4. Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Ghashiram Kanhiyalal Solanki & Anr. [(2007) 15 SCC 655]. 5. Collector of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira [ (2004) 3 SCC 549 ] 6. State of M.P. Vs. Kajad [ (2001) 7 SCC 673 ]. 7. Sanjay Kumar Kedia Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr. [ (2008) 2 SCC 294 ]. 8. Atul B. Kohly Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau [ILR (2002) I Delhi 470]. 8. I have bestowed consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and scanned the requisite material available on record. 9. Methaqualone is a pharmaceutical depressant with its trade name Mandrax. Initially, Mandrax was known as safe and non-dependent drug and therefore prescribed by medical practitioners as sleep-aid, to reduce high blood pressure and anxiety attacks. However, with advent of time and experience, its side effects were seen and even threatening to life when taken with Alcohol. 9. Methaqualone is a pharmaceutical depressant with its trade name Mandrax. Initially, Mandrax was known as safe and non-dependent drug and therefore prescribed by medical practitioners as sleep-aid, to reduce high blood pressure and anxiety attacks. However, with advent of time and experience, its side effects were seen and even threatening to life when taken with Alcohol. Besides that, its ill-effects causing psychological and physical dependency also noticed, which eventually led to ban this drug in many parts of the world including India. Mandrax is also banned in Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa and Far East. 10. Under the NDPS Act, as per Schedule, “Methaqualone” is shown as psychotropic substance at Serial No.20. To check and control the menace of illicit drug traffic and drug abuse, a comprehensive legislation, NDPS Act, was promulgated, which prescribes sufficient deterrent penalties for these offences. 11. The bail plea of both the petitioners has been canvassed vociferously by respective counsels urging many issues touching merits of the case. Conversely, Counsel for the DRI has opposed the bail applications with full gusto. 12. Upon consideration of the bail applications, it has came to the fore that huge quantity of Methaqualone tablets are recovered and seized by DRI from Godown No.G-1, 347, Bhamashah Industrial Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur, owned by main accused Subhash Dudani. The seized Methaqualone tablets when weighed, its weight came to 23,320 kgs. There remains no quarrel that aforesaid contraband is umpteen time higher than commercial quantity as per Central Gazette Notification S.O.527(E) dated 16th of July, 1996. In terms of the Notification, at Serial No.161, commercial quantity of Methaqualone is shown as 500gms. 13. Now adverting to the role of petitioners for alleged offences, suffice it to observe that prosecution has made an attempt to show their direct nexus with main accused Subhash Dudani and involvement in manufacturing of narcotic substance. In this behalf, statements of Shankar Lal Meghwal, a labourer, prima facie, indicates that industrial activities were carried out at Gudli Industrial Area, RIICO, Udaipur and Shrinath Industries, Doinda, Rajsamand. The witness has also stated that at both the places identical plant and machinery was installed for preparation of chemicals. Likewise, witness Rai Singh, has acknowledged the fact that plants installed at Mewar Chemical, Gudli Industrial Area and Shrinath Industries, Doinda Rajsamand were identical. The witness has also shown active involvement of petitioner Gunjan Dudani in manufacturing process. The witness has also stated that at both the places identical plant and machinery was installed for preparation of chemicals. Likewise, witness Rai Singh, has acknowledged the fact that plants installed at Mewar Chemical, Gudli Industrial Area and Shrinath Industries, Doinda Rajsamand were identical. The witness has also shown active involvement of petitioner Gunjan Dudani in manufacturing process. Witness Sanjay Ravi Lal Patel has also shown involvement of Shrinath Industries in manufacturing process of Methaqualone. Yet another witness, Sanjay Mistri, has also stated that the structure of chemical plant installed at Shrinath Industries, Doinda, is akin to layout plan of acitic anhydride (a constituent of Methaqualone), supplied to Mr. Subhash Dudani. Apart from the evidence of some of the independent witnesses, there is candid disclosure by both the petitioners under Section 67 of the NDPS Act also to show their involvement. A very significant fact that petitioner Gunjan Dudani. being biological son of main accused Subhash Dudani joined his estranged father in the year 2006 to look after computerization of some of the industries owned by him and in lieu thereof was benefited by his father in the form of largess, cannot be completely eschewed by this Court at this stage. A qualified Computer Science Engineer cannot plead ignorance about the business activities of his biological father with whom he remained associated for almost a decade. As regards petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas, prosecution has set out a case that he was partner of Subhash Dudani in a firm Highseas Trading Corporation with 70% share of Subhash Dudani and 30% share of petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas, as such, it is rather difficult to accept the plea of petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas that he was simply a financial consultant of main accused Subhash Dudani. Subsistence of relationship between Subhash Dudani and petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas relate back to 2006 or even anterior to it. The industrial plot at Doinda, Rajsamand was allotted to petitioner Parmeshwar Vyas for manufacturing transformers but there is no iota of evidence to show that any infrastructure was raised by him in this behalf or he has engaged any technocrat/expert of electrical or electronics engineering to start production at the site. Against this sort of situation, the evidence which is collected during investigation, more particularly, the evidence of Sanjay Mistri is unfurling altogether a different picture. Against this sort of situation, the evidence which is collected during investigation, more particularly, the evidence of Sanjay Mistri is unfurling altogether a different picture. Thus, in totality, at this stage, Court is not expected to consider high degree of certainty about involvement of petitioners in commission of offences. Moreover, looking to the huge quantity of contraband recovered in the matter, which is umpteen times higher than commercial quantity, rigor envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is also attracted in the present matter. 14. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not akin to confession or admission of guilt by petitioners, cannot be eschewed by this Court at this stage in view of fluid legal position on the subject. The Supreme Court judgments, on which learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance, i.e., Noor Aga and Toofan Singh (supra), expressed doubts about statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as confessional or admission of guilt. Contrary to it, the judgments in Ram Singh, Kanhaiyalal, and Rajkumar Karwal (supra), Supreme Court has taken a different view so as to place reliance on statements of accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as incriminatory. The judgments of Supreme Court, on the point, have expressed divergent opinions and therefore matter has been rendered to Larger Bench in Toofan Singh’s case (supra) and reference is still pending adjudication. While it is true, that reference has been made to the Larger Bench of Supreme Court to decide this vital issue, but then at the stage of consideration of bail application, Court cannot completely ignore or brush aside the revelations of accused petitioners under Section 67 of the NDPS Act showing their involvement in commission of offences. That apart, DRI has also collected some other independent evidence showing involvement of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 15. The argument of learned counsel for Mr. Parmeshwar Vyas, that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not akin to statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even if it is assumed that these statements are on par with statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then too are not admissible by virtue of Section 162 Cr.P.C., appears to be alluring but not of substance. Parmeshwar Vyas, that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not akin to statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even if it is assumed that these statements are on par with statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then too are not admissible by virtue of Section 162 Cr.P.C., appears to be alluring but not of substance. Merely because the statements of witness recorded in the course of investigation was signed by him, at the instance of Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that same has rendered the evidence inadmissible. It merely puts the Court on caution and may necessitate in-depth scrutiny of the evidence but the evidence on this count cannot be rejected outright. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on a decision of Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Antony [ (1985) 1 SCC 505 ]. The statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are undeniably not considered as akin to confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at this stage because the Court’s primary concern is to exercise its discretion prudently in accordance with law. 16. In view of foregoing discussion, while refraining to make any comments on merits of the case and taking into account the entire facts scenario, I feel persuaded to invoke embargo envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for thwarting bail plea of the petitioners. 17. Resultantly, both these bail applications fail and are hereby dismissed.