ORDER : 1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with the complaint registered and numbered as N.D.P.S. Sessions Case No.14/2015 of the Court of City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in connection with offences under Sections 22, 9(A), 25(A), 29, 30 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substance) Order 2013 on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered vide F.No.NCB/AZU/CR02/ 2014 with Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that acting on tip of Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad had apprehended one Mayur Trivedi along with the prohibited drugs and investigation of said Mayur Trivedi lead to revelation of the name of the applicant as supplier and had implicated the applicant in the statement under Section67 of the NDPS Act, which was recorded on 08032014 and identified the applicant in the name of Javed. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and cannot be arraigned as accused merely on the statement of co-accused namely Mayur Trivedi and that to when said Mayur Trivedi has referred to in his statement to one Javed of Delhi. It is submitted that from the applicant, no prohibited contraband has been recovered and the applicant was only found in the company with the co-accused Mayur Trivedi from whose possession contraband was found. It is submitted that from the investigation case papers, there is no evidence of any meeting of mind of the applicant with the other co-accused, so as to attract the allegation of having hatched the conspiracy to commit the offence. It is submitted that statement recorded under Section67 of the NDPS Act, has no value in the eyes of the law as in view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as there is no other evidence against the applicant and hence, he should be enlarged on regular bail. 5. It is submitted that statement recorded under Section67 of the NDPS Act, has no value in the eyes of the law as in view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as there is no other evidence against the applicant and hence, he should be enlarged on regular bail. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant is aged 53 years and he has been in custody since 2015 and as the trial is not likely to be completed within short period and hence, the applicant to be enlarged on regular bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the offence is of very serious nature involving huge quantity of Narcotic substance namely “Amphetamine”. Investigation papers reveals that the applicant was in constant touch with the co-accused Mayur Trivedi before immediate seizure took place at Ahmedabad. It is submitted that charge has already been framed and the witnesses are being examined and therefore, as the trial has commenced, the applicant may not be enlarged on regular bail. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that that over and above S.439 of Cr.P.C., provisions of S.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will come into play. It has been categorically stated that accused of the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act should not be released on bail during the trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in S.37 viz. (i.) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and (ii.) That he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in reported at (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831 Union of India V/s. Ratan Mallik Alias Habul wherein at paragraph no.16 has clearly observed "merely because, according to the learned Judge, nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, it could not be said at this stage that the respondent was not guilty of the offences for which he had been charged and convicted. We find no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the observation of the learned Judge to the effect that 'nothing has been found from his possession' by itself shown application of mind by the learned Judge tantamounting to 'satisfaction' within the meaning of the said provision. It seems that the provisions of the NDPS Act and more particularly Section 37 were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge." 9. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the investigation pertains to seizure of Narcotic substance namely “Amphetamine”, which are of commercial quantity from the co-accused. From the investigation, it appears that an information was received from NCB Zonal Unit Jodhpur on 06032014 that “NCB Zonal Unit Jodhpur conducted a house search in Jhotwara area of Jaipur and recovered 18 kg. of Charas concealed in a house and a car. Two persons namely Kafil Ahmed @ Javed S/o Wakil Ahmed and his driver Mukesh S/o Ramprasad, have been detained and panchnama proceedings carried out. During preliminary interrogation it was revealed that Kafil Anmed @ Javed was to deliver Charas to some person named Mukhtar Bajra, near Salam Dargah, Ahmedabad. Further he also stated that he took samples of Amphetamine and Alprazolam from one Mayur Trivedi. Acting upon the above information, officers of Ahmedabad Zonal Unit of Narcotics Control Bureau, carried out search of the residential premises of Mayur Trivedi with two independent panch witnesses. To search the house, Shri Trivedi gave his consent for search of the house. On entering the premises the main entrance opened in a room admeasuring about 12 feet x 12 feet. This room was searched systematically in the presence of independent panchas and Shri Mayur Trivedi nothing was recovered from this room. 10. Thereafter the search of the main bedroom was carried out. On entering into this room there was a metal almirah to the right side of the entrance. On the top of this almirah a red coloured trolley bag of LAPEARL COMPANY was noticed. Mayur Trivedi was asked to open that bag. 10. Thereafter the search of the main bedroom was carried out. On entering into this room there was a metal almirah to the right side of the entrance. On the top of this almirah a red coloured trolley bag of LAPEARL COMPANY was noticed. Mayur Trivedi was asked to open that bag. Mayur Trivedi opened that bag and a polythene bag with Big Bazar written on this was found in the bag On further opening of this polythene bag a transparent polythene bag was seen on removing this further one more polythene bag was seen and this bag contained a white substance in powder form. On enquiry about this substance Mayur Trivedi informed that this is Ephedrine and this was supplied to him by one Javedbhai and one Maharajbhai about five months back. In his statement accepted that 4.120 kilogram of white crystalline material suspected to be Ephedrine and 280 gram and 410 gram Amphetamine in two different packings was recovered from his house. He further stated that in January 2014 Javed came to Ahmedabad and met him at Vijay Guest House near Geeta Mandir bus stand. He handed over him the two packets containing Amphetamine and told him that in a few days Maharajbhai will come to Ahmedabad and take away this Amphetamine and will pay his dues. In his statement he gave the description how he came in contact of Javed and Maharajbhai. He further stated that he procured Ephedrine tablets for giving to Javedbhai as he had demanded these Ephedrine tablets which he later denied to take. He accepted his involvement in acquiring Ephedrine and converting it into Amphetamine. 11. Harsukhbhai Lafibhai Patel owner of Vyay Guest House, and his statement was recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act 1985 (as amended) on 01,04.2014. In his statement he has confirmed the fact that a person named Kafil Ahmed Vakil Ahmed used to stay in his Guest House. He was shown the Xeroxed copy of Kafil Ahmed’s photograph and he identified the same. He stated that whenever Kafil Ahmed visited his Guest House a person used to come to meet him (Kafil Ahmed). When he was confronted with Mayur Trivedi’s photograph he confirmed that he is the same man who used to come to meet Kafil Ahmed. He was shown the Xeroxed copy of Kafil Ahmed’s photograph and he identified the same. He stated that whenever Kafil Ahmed visited his Guest House a person used to come to meet him (Kafil Ahmed). When he was confronted with Mayur Trivedi’s photograph he confirmed that he is the same man who used to come to meet Kafil Ahmed. He produced the photo copies of relevant pages of guest entry register showing stay particulars of Kafil Ahmed in his Guest House. He also produced photo copy of driving license of Kafil Ahmed which was submitted by Kafil Ahmed as ID proof while booking the room in Vijay Guest House. 12. Call detail records of mobile number 9723241134 used by Mayur Trivedi and call detail record of mobile number 9258174387 which was used by Kafil Ahmed @ Javed, as this number was given by Javed to Vijay Gest House while booking the room, were obtained from service provider companies. On analysis of call detail records it is evident that Mayur Trivedi and Kafil Ahmed @ Javed were in contact with each other from July 2013 to first week of March, 2014. During the investigation, it has come on record of the case while Kafil Ahmed @Javed of Delhi was detained in connection with the seizure of 18 Kgs of charas from Jaipur by Jodhpur NCB, he had disclosed before the NCB officers of Jodhpur that he had taken samples of Amphetamine and Alprazolem from one Mayur Trivedi and also give two addresses of Mayur Trivedi located in Ahmedabad. He also revealed that one Pappu Shukla had introduced him to Mayur Trivedi. Kafil @Javed gave their Mobile Numbers also. 13. With respect to Section37 and its application, the Apex Court in a reported case at 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1522 Union of India V/s. Ram Samujh & Anr. at para no.7 has categorically observed that "it is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. 13. With respect to Section37 and its application, the Apex Court in a reported case at 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1522 Union of India V/s. Ram Samujh & Anr. at para no.7 has categorically observed that "it is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or inflicting deathblow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it caused deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and / or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely". In the above referred judgment the Apex Court at para no.8 has observed that "to check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during the trial unless the mandatory conditions are satisfied_ _ _". Above referred judgment is followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a reported case at 2001 SCC (Cri.) 648 Supdt., Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai V/s. R. Paulsamy wherein, at paragraph no.6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed S.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and ultimately has stated that both the conditions mentioned in S.37 are to be fulfilled. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another matter reported at (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 505 Union of India V/s. Shiv Shanker Kesari wherein at paragraph no.6, S.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is discussed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically mentioned that 'no person shall be granted bail unless the two conditions mentioned therein are satisfied'. 14. Thereafter latest judgment delivered by Apex Court reported at (2019) 1 SCC (Criminal) 407 Union of India Vs Niyazuddin SK. and Another, wherein para No.6 and 7 this point is discussed at length. At para No.6 it has been observed that "Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain offences enumerated under the said section. and Another, wherein para No.6 and 7 this point is discussed at length. At para No.6 it has been observed that "Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain offences enumerated under the said section. They are : 1) In the case of a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19, 2) Under Section 24, 3) Under Section 27A and 4) Of offences involving commercial quantity. At para No.7, it has been observed that "the accusation in the present case is with regard to the fourth factor, namely, commercial quantity. Be that as it may, once the Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a person accused of the enumerated offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Ac, in case, the Court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements under the provisions of CrPC or any other enactment. 1) The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence: 2) That person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." 15. It would be appropriate to give due regards to the submissions made by the learned APP bringing of notice of the Court the grim situation that is prevailing, especially in the State of Gujarat where offences under the provision of NDPS Act dealing with the drugs like 'Ganja', Charas', 'Nephadrone' and 'Amphetamine' are on huge increase and the action is taken by the Government Agency to deter the use from indulging into the activities related to drugs which include the drug dealing, drug peddling and drug consuming. 16. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant for the grant of regular bail in connection with aforesaid C.R. Hence, the application deserves to and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.