ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on the record. 2. The instant second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R No. 70/2012, registered at Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The first application for bail submitted on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 06.03.2017 Thereafter, the material prosecution witness being Govind Singh Charan, Inspector who arrested the petitioner in this case has been examined by the trial court and hence this second bail application has been moved on his behalf. 4. Shri. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner urges that it is correct to say that numerous criminal cases are registered against the petitioner apart from the present one but he contends that in the case at hand, there does not exist even a slenderest evidence so as to keep the petitioner behind bars. He urges that admittedly, the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot with the contraband. The I.O found the petitioner involved in the case on the basis of some call details and the confessional statements of the co-accused persons. However, when cross-examined, the I.O Govind Singh Charan candidly conceded that sims in relation whereto the call details were collected were not recovered from the petitioner Opa Ram and no investigation was made to prove that the sims were issued to him. He thus urges that the petitioner, who is in custody since 13.01.2016, deserves to be released on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the I.O Shri. Govind Singh Charan vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that no recovery of any contraband whatsoever was made from the petitioner's possession or at his instance. The petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of recovery. The petitioner was named by the co-accused during interrogation. The admissibility of these confessional statements is questionable. The call details in reference whereto, the petitioner was arrested apparently cannot be read against him because neither were the sims issued to him nor could the I.O collect any evidence to prove that Opa Ram was using these sim numbers. 6. The petitioner was named by the co-accused during interrogation. The admissibility of these confessional statements is questionable. The call details in reference whereto, the petitioner was arrested apparently cannot be read against him because neither were the sims issued to him nor could the I.O collect any evidence to prove that Opa Ram was using these sim numbers. 6. In this background, I am of the opinion that the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Opa Ram arrested in connection with the F.I.R No. 70/2012, registered at Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.