JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Petitioner has preferred this petition, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in case Crime No. 66 of 2019, dated 7.11.2019 registered under Sections 8, 20, 25, 28, 29 and 60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') in Police Station Narcotics Control Bureau,Chandigarh, District Chandigarh. 2. Prosecution case, as evident from copy of complaint filed with petition, is that on 7.11.2019, a specific information was received by Rajan Singh Bisht, Surveillance Assistant NCB through reliable source with respect to trafficking of charas and opium, which was reduced into writing by him and put up before Superintendent NCB Chandigarh at 01.05 PM, whereupon Superintendent NCB had instructed to constitute a team to take further necessary action as per law. 3. As per information, two persons, namely Kuldeep and Hardeep, both resident of Mani Majra Chandigarh, were engaged in charas and opium trafficking and they had been transporting a huge consignment of charas and opium on that day, received from one Dev Raj, resident of Banjar to deliver it to one Karamvir @ Landa resident of Pinjore (petitioner) by using Mahindra Pickup vehicle bearing No. HP-12J-4403 and they were likely to reach at Toll Barrier Baddi between 4 PM to 5 PM. 4. It is the case of prosecution that on 7.11.2019 at about 2.45 PM, the team constituted by Superintendent NCB reached at Toll Barrier Baddi Himachal Pradesh and contacted Police Station Baddi with request to provide two independent witnesses. Further that despite best of efforts made by the team, no one from the local public had agreed to witness the search and seizure proceedings, but, at about 3.45 PM, two police officials namely Akram Khan and Shiv Kumar Constables, posted in Police Station Baddi, had approached the scene. Both of them were introduced to NCB team by Investigating Officer and were made aware of secret information. Both of them were requested, in writing, to witness the search and seizure proceedings for which they had agreed. 5. According to prosecution, at about 4.45 PM Mahindra Pickup, matching with secret information, reached the Toll Barrier which was stopped and person sitting at driver's seat, on inquiry had introduced him as Kuldeep son of Gafur, resident of Mani Majra and person sitting besides him had disclosed his name as Hardeep Kumar son of Harish Kumar. 5. According to prosecution, at about 4.45 PM Mahindra Pickup, matching with secret information, reached the Toll Barrier which was stopped and person sitting at driver's seat, on inquiry had introduced him as Kuldeep son of Gafur, resident of Mani Majra and person sitting besides him had disclosed his name as Hardeep Kumar son of Harish Kumar. They were taken to nearby barrier of Excise and Taxation Office and Investigating Officer had introduced himself and his team members including independent witnesses to them by showing Identity Cards and also about the secret information received by him with respect to trafficking of charas and opium by both of them and therefore, expressed the intention to search the vehicle Mahinder Pickup van. 6. It is further case of prosecution that during search of pickup van, at first instance, nothing was recovered. However, on stern inquiry, both of them had confessed that they had concealed the charas and opium in a special cavity made at backside of pickup, below the registration number plate whereupon pickup van was again searched and both of them had removed the number plate and had taken out 10 silver colored packets and informed that one of those packets was containing opium, while other nine were containing charas. 7. Recovered contraband was weighed and seized by following the procedure provided under NDPS Act and total recovered charas was found 8 Kg. 750 grams and recovered opium was found 1.020 Kg. 8. On 8.11.2019 Karamvir petitioner was served with summons under Section 67 of NDPS Act and his house as well as his vehicle Car No. CH-01BU-2516 were searched. Besides other articles, three mobile phones, a silver small weighing machine and an electronic compact scale were also recovered and seized from his residence. During investigation, on 8.11.2019 voluntary statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act of all i.e. Kuldeep, Hardeep and Karamvir were recorded by Investigating Officer, after explaining about their right that they were not bound to give any statement and they were at liberty to remain silent and any statement, if given by them, could be used against them or against anybody-else as evidence in Court. 9. According to prosecution, in their statements, all of them had accepted their guilt and role in procurement and trafficking the seized contraband. Based on voluntary statements, all of them were arrested on 8.11.2019. 10. 9. According to prosecution, in their statements, all of them had accepted their guilt and role in procurement and trafficking the seized contraband. Based on voluntary statements, all of them were arrested on 8.11.2019. 10. It is case of prosecution that during investigation, call detail reports (CDRs) of mobile phones of trio were also obtained and it was found that mobile numbers 78075-30188, 62303- 49337, 88940-41593 were being controlled by Karamvir petitioner, whereas mobile numbers 86278-86848 and 86278- 67931 were being controlled by Kuldeep and Dev Raj respectively. Analysis of CDRs of these numbers had established the link between petitioner Karamvir (receiver), carrier Kuldeep and Hardeep, and supplier Dev Raj. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has canvassed for enlargement of petitioner on bail on two grounds. First ground is that petitioner is entitled for bail on health ground and vide application Cr.MP No. 1475 of 2020, documents/prescription slips of treatment of petitioner were also placed on record on behalf of petitioner, whereupon, Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General was requested to assist the Court by having report of Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail Nahan as well as Medical Officer of Jail. 12. In response thereto, Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record communication received from Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan HP along with report and photocopies of documents, wherein, it has been reported that petitioner was admitted to Model Central Jail Nahan on 14th March, 2020 after transferring him from District Jail, Solan and on medical examination, he was found suffering from CAD (Coronary Artery Disease), Hypertension and Psychiatric illness for which as per his Jail Medical Record, he was already under treatment. Further that petitioner has been suffering from CAD since 2017 and has underwent Stenting Procedure for same on 19.9.2017 at PGI and was discharged on 22.9.2007 and he is on regular medication and constant follow up. 13. Lastly, it is reported that petitioner is on regular medication, and proper treatment and care is being provided to him by Jail Authorities and currently, he is stable and doing well in jail. 14. To substantiate the report of Superintendent Jail, opinion of Medical Officer of Jail has also been placed on record. 15. 13. Lastly, it is reported that petitioner is on regular medication, and proper treatment and care is being provided to him by Jail Authorities and currently, he is stable and doing well in jail. 14. To substantiate the report of Superintendent Jail, opinion of Medical Officer of Jail has also been placed on record. 15. Considering the report of Superintendent Jail of Model Central Jail coupled with contents of opinion of Medical Officer, I do not find any sufficient reason for enlarging the petitioner on bail on health ground. 16. Second ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail is that he has been implicated in present case only on the basis of statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act, whereas on the basis of statement of Section 67 of NDPS Act, as held by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013, titled Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, decided on 29.10.2020, a statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under NDPS Act. 17. There is no dispute with respect to law laid down by the Supreme Court, relied upon by petitioner. However, as a matter of fact in present case petitioner has not been involved in the case only on the basis of statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, but, as claimed by prosecution, a prior information about his involvement in procuring, trafficking and selling the charas and opium was received by a Surveillance Assistant of NCB on 7.11.2019, which was reduced into writing and placed before the Officer of rank of Superintendent NCB whereupon a team was constituted and that information was substantiated on recovery of charas and opium from vehicle wherein Kuldeep and Hardeep (accused) were found transporting the contraband and involvement of Karamvir petitioner has further been substantiated by CDRs record and also on recovery of a silver small weighing machine and electronic compact scale from his residence and therefore, it is not a case where petitioner has been involved only on basis of voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act or only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused. Therefore, plea of petitioner on this count is not sustainable. 18. Veracity of evidence narrated by prosecution is to be evaluated by trial Court. Therefore, plea of petitioner on this count is not sustainable. 18. Veracity of evidence narrated by prosecution is to be evaluated by trial Court. Facts of prosecution case and contentions of petitioner have been reproduced herein-above only for bringing the necessary facts on record, which were essential to be considered for adjudication of this petition. 19. Without commenting upon merits of prosecution case as well as contentions raised by petitioner, but for nature and gravity of offence, impact thereof on society and quantum of contraband recovered and also that petitioner has not been involved only on the basis of statement made under Section 67 of NDPS Act, I do not find any reason for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage. 20. In view of above, petition is dismissed. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application.