ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In the present case, accused/respondent no.1 and co-accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 8/22, 29 and 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). 4. Accused was taken in custody on 24.12.2015 and had preferred application for bail before the Court of Special Judge, Alwar, which came to be rejected on 08.12.2017. The order indicates that the Trial Court had heard the Public Prosecutor engaged by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi. 5. The accused being aggrieved carried the matter further by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. IIIrd Bail No.17214/2017 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The High Court vide its order dated 15.12.2017, which is presently under appeal, directed release of the accused/respondent no.1 on bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. 6. In this appeal, exception is taken to the aforesaid order, mainly on the ground that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, no person accused inter alia of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. 7. It is submitted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant that the Public Prosecutor who was in-charge of the matter, namely, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, was never put to notice before the application for bail was taken up for consideration. The Public Prosecutor who appeared in the High Court was the one representing the State of Rajasthan and, as such, was neither competent nor was apprised of the factual matrix of the matter. 8. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent however submitted that as a result of the order of the High Court, the respondent has been released on bail and is enjoying liberty for last more than a year. 9. Ms. Dave further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs Kishan Lal & Others , (1991) 1 SCC 705 to submit that at this length of time, this Court may not direct that the respondent be taken in custody. 10. 9. Ms. Dave further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs Kishan Lal & Others , (1991) 1 SCC 705 to submit that at this length of time, this Court may not direct that the respondent be taken in custody. 10. After hearing both the sides, we direct as under: a) Order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the High Court was passed without issuing notice to the Public Prosecutor concerned and as such there was a serious infirmity. The order of the High Court is set-aside. b) Having set-aside the order, we restore the S.B. Criminal Misc. IIIrd Bail No.17214/2017 to the file and request the High Court to consider the matter afresh within a period of one month. c) However, since accused/respondent no.1 has been on bail, he shall continue to have the advantage of that order till the matter is considered by the High Court afresh. d) If the High Court finds that accused/ respondent no.1 is not entitled to the benefit of bail, he shall immediately be taken in custody. If however the High Court finds that he is entitled to be released on bail, he shall continue to enjoy the benefit of being on bail and shall be subject to all the conditions as have been imposed. 11. With these observations, we dispose of the present appeal. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 11.03.2019. 12. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the matter.