JUDGMENT : S.H. VORA, J. 1. This successive bail application is fled under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R. No. 11210004211758 of 2021 with Amroli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b) IIC and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Daiya for the applicant. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is a female accused and nothing is found in her conscious possession as she was travelling with other co-accused viz., Mr. Jenish and Mr. Atulbhai Patil and the applicant has nothing to do with the NDPS substance weighing 4.684 Kilogram of Charas. It is further submitted that applicant was travelling in the car alongwith other co-accused and therefore, she cannot be said to be in conscious possession of contraband substance which is of commercial quantity and no any call details available to connect the present petitioner with the offence, more particularly, with other co-accused persons. 3. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pressed into service following decisions to grant the bail as there was joint seizure of NDPS substance from all the three co-accused. 1. Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India [2021(0) AIJEL-SC 68120]. 2. Ragini Dwidedi @ Gini @ Rags v. State of Karnataka [2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 66968]. 3. Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat [2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65693]. 4. Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [2020 0 SSC 646]. 5. Order dated 04/09/2015 rendered in CR.MA No. 14303 of 2015 by this Court. 6. Order dated 05/08/2016 rendered in CR.MA No. 16158 of 2016 by this Court. 7. Order dated 09/06/2017 rendered in CR.MA No. 11351 of 2017 by this Court. 8. Order dated 11/11/2019 rendered in CR.MA No. 7988 of 2019 by this Court. 9. Order dated 10/08/2020 rendered in CR.MA No. 4262 of 2020 by this Court. 10. Order dated 15/10/2020 rendered in CR.MA No. 11949 of 2020 by this Court. 11. Order rendered in MCRC-46701 OF 2021 on 18/11/2021 by the High Court of and hra Pradesh. 12. Order rendered in BLAPL No. 8061 of 2021 on 27/10/2021 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. 13. Order rendered in BLAPL No. 3895 of 2021 on 23/09/2021 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. 14. 11. Order rendered in MCRC-46701 OF 2021 on 18/11/2021 by the High Court of and hra Pradesh. 12. Order rendered in BLAPL No. 8061 of 2021 on 27/10/2021 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. 13. Order rendered in BLAPL No. 3895 of 2021 on 23/09/2021 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. 14. Order rendered on 16/11/2015 in Criminal Petition No. 6053 of 2015 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. 15. Order rendered on 04/01/2016 in Criminal Petition No. 8186 of 2015 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. 4. I have considered the submissions made at bar and the decisions as referred herein above mainly for grant of present application as the case of the present petitioner stands on the same footing to those accused persons who came to be enlarged wherein they were found in joint possession with other co-accused. 5. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is required to be noted that co-accused-Mr. Jenish before his arrest made a specific disclosure to the police authority that all the accused persons are involved in the transmission of narcotic substance, more particularly, 4.684 Kilogram of Charas and this statement of co-accused is admissible in evidence under Section 10 of the Evidence Act as it is made prior to his arrest. Furthermore, none of the decisions above-referred lays down the proposition that because there was a joint recovery of narcotic substance, bail should be considered or such seizure becomes illegal. As such in none of the case, Section 10 of the Evidence Act was made applicable and therefore, on this ground alone the present application does not deserve to be considered. 6. Additionally, it also appears that applicant and co-accused-Mr. Jenish were in contact with each other and call details were also recovered by the police authority. It also appears that the Investigating Agency has also collected the WhatsApp chats, as also present petitioner has also deposited the money in the account of co-accused-Mr. Jenish and therefore, considering their inter-se transaction took place/talks prior to the seizure of the narcotic substance of huge commercial quantity, prima-facie involvement of the present petitioner in the offence in question cannot be ruled out. 7. Jenish and therefore, considering their inter-se transaction took place/talks prior to the seizure of the narcotic substance of huge commercial quantity, prima-facie involvement of the present petitioner in the offence in question cannot be ruled out. 7. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and considering the serious and adverse impact on the public health on the account of the narcotic substance, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present successive bail application. Accordingly, the present application stands rejected.