ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with a case registered in Crime No.588/2018 of Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences under Sections 21(b), 21(c), 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ for short] and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 2. Brief facts; On 02.11.2018, at about 9.00 a.m., on a credible information that 2 African nationals and one Indian national are indulged in drug trafficking, the premises bearing No.25, I Floor, 3rd Cross, Kacharakanahalli, Thomas Town, Bengaluru, was raided by the CCB Police and from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3, they seized 1.5 kgs. of cocaine, 914 gms. of ecstasy drug in the form of 1930 pills as well as Toyota car, Honda Active bike and other articles and on the basis of the report submitted by the Police Inspector, CCB., Women and Narcotic Drugs Squad, the aforesaid case was registered. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420, 120B of IPC and Sections 21(b), 21(c), 22(c) of the NDPS Act and under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. On 03.09.2020, the Investigation Officer filed a memo before the jurisdictional court for permission to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and on obtaining the permission, he proceeded with the further investigation and on 03.09.2020 and 04.09.2020 arrested accused Nos.4 and 5 respectively. Thereafter, the present petitioner came to be apprehended on 09.09.2020. 3. The petitioner herein, who is arraigned as accused No.6, filed a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Special Court which was rejected in Criminal Misc. No.5296/2020 vide Order dated 10.11.2020. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent and he is not involved in any offence much less the one now alleged against him by the prosecution. He would contend that after his arrest, no contraband substances have been recovered from his possession and he has been arraigned as an accused on an allegation that he erased the data from his mobile phone and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 201 and 204 of IPC. He would contend that after his arrest, no contraband substances have been recovered from his possession and he has been arraigned as an accused on an allegation that he erased the data from his mobile phone and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 201 and 204 of IPC. He contends that there is absolutely no material collected for such allegations made by the prosecution since, in spite of taking the petitioner to Police custody for a period of more than 12 days, the prosecution has not collected any material to substantiate the same. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the mahazar drawn by the Police on 10.09.2020 and submits that the articles which are now alleged to have been seized from his house cannot be said to be incriminating materials so as to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is his further contention that accused Nos.1 to 3 against whom there are serious charges including seizure of narcotic drugs, have been enlarged on bail and even accused No.5 has been granted bail by this Court. He submits that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and he is the sole bread winner in the family and his father was a retired Brigadier of the Indian Army. The petitioner is the Founding Member of one Rachana Kala Foundation, a Charitable Institution which promotes Indian Culture and Music and he has contributed to the social cause etc. He further contended that Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract to the case on hand since there is no contraband material seized at the instance of the petitioner and further, there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 5. The learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the respondent has filed statements of objection. He has opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending that the total quantity of drugs seized in this case from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 is 1.5 kgs. of cocaine and 914 gms. of ecstasy drugs [1930 tablets] which are valued at Rs.1,50,00,000/-[Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only]. Considering the high value of the substances seized, it was necessary to find out if there are other persons involved in financing and trafficking of illicit drugs and narcotic substances. Therefore, chargesheet was filed keeping open further investigation. of cocaine and 914 gms. of ecstasy drugs [1930 tablets] which are valued at Rs.1,50,00,000/-[Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only]. Considering the high value of the substances seized, it was necessary to find out if there are other persons involved in financing and trafficking of illicit drugs and narcotic substances. Therefore, chargesheet was filed keeping open further investigation. He contends that the further investigation revealed the involvement of accused Nos.4 to 6 and therefore, they were also arrested. He contends that the petitioner and others were financing accused Nos.3 to 5 for trafficking of drugs and narcotic substances and also consumption of said contraband in the parties organized by accused No.5. The material collected so far reveal that the accused have also committed offences punishable under Section 27A of the NDPS Act and Sections 201 and 204 of IPC and accordingly, the said Sections are also invoked for the purpose of investigation. He further contends that a search was conducted in the house of the petitioner at Bengaluru and a ganja crusher, hookah pot, a laptop as well as 2 plastic pipes and a mobile phone have been seized and the material seized have been subjected to FSL. It is his further contention that the petitioner has given voluntary statement admitting that he used to supply drugs in the parties arranged by accused No.5 in hotels, pubs, dance bars and music parties as well as stalls in the farm houses. The accused persons along with the petitioner were procuring drugs from different parts of the country. He therefore contends that there is substantial evidence collected by the Investigation Officer. Further, the petitioner who was in close contact with accused No.1 has exchanged number of chat massages with the said accused. Since further investigation is still pending and Police have to collect sufficient information and materials from the petitioner about his involvement in the offences along with other accused persons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief he has sought in the petition. He contends that the petitioner is a rich and influential person having connection with antisocial elements, therefore if he is released on bail, there is likelihood of tempering with the evidence and threatening the witnesses and there are also chances of fleeing from justice. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the petition. 6. He contends that the petitioner is a rich and influential person having connection with antisocial elements, therefore if he is released on bail, there is likelihood of tempering with the evidence and threatening the witnesses and there are also chances of fleeing from justice. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both side and having perused the material on record, it is seen that accused Nos.1 to 3 came to be arrested on 02.11.2018 and from their possession, a total quantity of 1.5 kgs. cocaine and 914 gms. of ecstasy drugs in the form of 1930 pills as well as Toyota car, Honda Activa bike and other articles were seized. Thereafter, accused Nos.4 and 5 came to be arrested on 03.09.2020 and 04.09.2020 respectively. Material on record disclose that the Investigation Officer sought permission from the Court to conduct further investigation and the learned Special Judge vide Order dated 03.09.2020 permitted to conduct further enquiry in this case as per requisition filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to the arrest of accused Nos.4 and 5, their voluntary statements are stated to have been recorded and the present petitioner arraigned as accused No.6 came to be arrested on 10.09.2020. 7. As per seizure panchanama dated 10.09.2020, the following articles are alleged to have been seized from the house of petitioner: (a) MSI A6200 Laptop, (b) a plastic crusher to crush ganja, (c) a hookah pot (d) 2 plastic pipes. 8. The prosecution has contended that the petitioner and others are involved in financing accused Nos.3 to 5 and they are involved in trafficking of drugs and narcotic substances generally and particularly for consumption of drugs and they were distributing the same in the parties organized by accused No.5. It is the case of prosecution that the accused/petitioner has committed offences punishable under Section 27A of the NDPS Act and Sections 201 and 204 of IPC. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2020 and initially after his remand to the judicial custody he was taken to Police custody for interrogation from 16.09.2020 to 21.09.2020 and again from 21.09.2020 to 28.09.2020. However, except the recovery alleged to have been made on 10.09.2020, there are no other contraband articles recovered from his possession. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2020 and initially after his remand to the judicial custody he was taken to Police custody for interrogation from 16.09.2020 to 21.09.2020 and again from 21.09.2020 to 28.09.2020. However, except the recovery alleged to have been made on 10.09.2020, there are no other contraband articles recovered from his possession. The prosecution has alleged that the petitioner was financing other accused persons to deal with narcotic drugs etc. To substantiate the same, there are no materials placed. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 to 3 from whom a large quantity of narcotic drugs were seized have been enlarged on bail. Further, accused No.5 was also granted bail by this Court on 04.01.2021 in Crl.P. No.6847/2020. 10. The learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the respondent has vehemently contended that grant of bail to accused No.5 is not a ground to enlarge the present petitioner, since the coordinate bench of this Court while enlarging the said petitioner has not taken into consideration the relevant facts and also not considered the bar created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant bail in a case where there is a prima facie case made out. Hence, he contends that doctrine of parity is not applicable. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2018)13 SCC 813 in support of his arguments. 11. In the instant case, this Court need not look into the reasons assigned by the coordinate bench while enlarging one of the accused viz., accused No.5 on bail. The facts of the case would make it clear that when accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested, their voluntary statements were recorded. However, it is not the case of prosecution that the said accused have given any statement implicating the present petitioner as the one who was supplying drugs to them or involved in financing for drug trafficking. 12. The learned Spl.P.P. by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehboob Ali and another Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2016)14 SCC 640 has contended that merely because the petitioner was not in possession of any contraband substances and nothing has been recovered at his instance, that itself is not a ground to grant the relief. State of Rajasthan reported in (2016)14 SCC 640 has contended that merely because the petitioner was not in possession of any contraband substances and nothing has been recovered at his instance, that itself is not a ground to grant the relief. In the said case, from the statements of the accused who were arrested, led to the arrest of coaccused and ultimately, the statement led to unearth the racket of fake currency notes. As already observed, even after the arrest of present petitioner, no contraband articles have been seized. Further, there is nothing to show from the statements of the coaccused viz., accused Nos.1 to 3 that the petitioner was either financing or trafficking in drugs. 13. The learned Spl.P.P. has contended that during the course of further investigation, statements of several witnesses have been recorded and their statements would reveal that the petitioner, accused Nos.4 and 5 and other accused persons used to organize parties and attend parties wherein they were supplying cocaine and ecstasy pills and even these accused were consuming drugs. Though such statements have been recorded, the veracity of their statements have to be gone into during the course of trial. At this stage there are no material to substantiate the same. 14. The learned Spl.P.P. for the respondent has also contended that the voluntary statement of the petitioner inculpate himself in the alleged crime and therefore there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. Though the said statement is not part of the record, it is relevant to extract para 155 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592 in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. 155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.” 15. (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.” 15. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there are no sufficient material at this stage to hold that there are reasonable grounds or a prima facie case against the petitioner to deny bail to him invoking the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.6 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.588/2018 of Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences under Sections 21(b), 21(c), 22(c), 27A of the NDPS Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Sections 201 and 204 of IPC, subject to following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/[Rupees Two Lakhs only] with two solvent sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (2) The petitioner shall not involve in tampering the prosecution witnesses and shall not hamper the case of prosecution in any manner. (3) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when his presence is necessary for the purpose of further investigation, if any. (4) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month preferably on a second Saturday between 10.00 am & 5.00 pm. till conclusion of the trial or until further orders. (5) The petitioner shall furnish proof of his correct residential address and also furnish the mobile/telephone numbers, email ID to the jurisdictional Court. (6) The petitioner shall not travel outside the country till conclusion of the trial and he shall be regular in attending the court proceedings. (7) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activity.