JUDGMENT : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted by XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS at Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.1/2017 vide order dated 09.01.2017. 2. I have heard the learned SPP Sri K.N. Mohan for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri C.M. Kempegowda for the accused-respondent. 3. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner/complainant received a call on 14.07.2016 at about 2.07 hours that a person by name Parimalagan Arumugam who was to travel to Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia through Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru has been detained by CISF personnel on suspicion of carrying some narcotics drugs. Accordingly, the team of NCB officers along with witnesses reached the said place and said CISF officials handed over the luggage belong to the accused. On search of the accused, six packets of Ketamine weighing 12.2 kgs and 98 MDMA files weighing 20 grams were found. On the basis of voluntary statement of the accused, he was arrested and proceedings were initiated and the accused also been released. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court while granting the bail has committed an error that it has not followed the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred as 'the act' for short). He further submitted that by overlooking the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukwani V/s. Union of India reported in, (1996) AIR SC 522, the trial Court has granted the bail. He further submitted that the seized drug is a commercial quantity and as per Section 37 of the Act, the trial Court ought not to have released the accused-respondent on bail. He further submitted that the trial Court has not assigned any good reason before passing the impugned order, that itself shows there is no application of mind by the trial Court. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and cancel the bail granted to the accused-respondent. 5. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent-accused vehemently argued and submitted that bail application has been filed and the liberty was given to him to file the bail application after filing the charge sheet. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and cancel the bail granted to the accused-respondent. 5. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent-accused vehemently argued and submitted that bail application has been filed and the liberty was given to him to file the bail application after filing the charge sheet. Accordingly, after filing of charge sheet, after six months, regular bail application has been filed giving notice to the public prosecutor and he opposed the said application. After considering the fact, trial Court has released the accused person on bail after filing of the charge sheet. Thereafter, accused has been released on bail by taking adequate security. He further submitted that after release, there is no allegation of he violating any of the terms and conditions imposed by the trial Court. He is regularly attending on all the dates of hearing. Now the case is set down for trial. Already charge sheet has been filed. At this juncture, if the accused petitioner is taken into custody, it may hamper the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to reject the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the records which have been made available along with the petition. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has not followed the provisions of Section 37 of the Act while granting bail. Section 37 of the Act which reads as under; "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for (offences under Section 19 or Section 24 of Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity) shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless:- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail) 8. On close reading of the said provision, there is bar to grant bail, if the quantity of the contraband goods is more than a commercial quantity. But however, there is no absolute bar as such. But the reasoning is that the Public Prosecutor given an opportunity to oppose the bail application and after satisfying that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the said offence, then, the accused can be released on bail. 9. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court, though has given notice and opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and objection has been filed, while passing the impugned order it has not assigned any specific reason as contemplated under Section 37 of the Act. It is observed that only by quoting the decision of this Court, the Court below held that the accused-petitioner is entitled for bail as he is no more required for investigation. 10. It is the submission of learned counsel for accused-respondent that after release of the accused, he is regularly attending the Court and the trial has been fixed and no other allegations are there. 11. Under the said facts and circumstances, it is not fit and just to cancel the bail and to take the accused into custody. But however, as could be seen from the order, the trial Court while giving bail has imposed simple conditions in that light, if some conditions are imposed to secure the presence of the accused for trial, it is going to meet the ends of justice i.e., the accused shall regularly attend the trial without fail. He shall give his attendance on 1st of every month in between 10.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. to the nearest police station where he resides so as to confirm about his residence in the said locality. With above condition, the petition is disposed of.