JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19). 2. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 364/2019, Police Station Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar for the offence under Sections 8/21, 29 of NDPS Act. 3. Heard Mr. Mangi Lal Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the rejection of the first bail application on 16.06.2020, the statement of PW-2 Rakesh Swami has been recorded before the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no recovery of contraband drugs from the possession of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the call details of the petitioner, he had spoken with the person from whom the contraband drugs was recovered only once and therefore, he is not connected with the recovery of contraband drugs in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in the case of State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. and other connected Special Leave Petitions submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. (supra), has held that merely the call details between the principal accused and the petitioner would not be a sufficient evidence to connect the person with the recovery of contraband in a particular case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Para-10 of the judgment which reads as under:- "10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless." 6. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and have gone through the statement of PW-2 Rakesh Swami. From the statement of PW-2, it has come on record that Mahendra Singh from whom the contraband drugs have been recovered, in his voluntary information has submitted that the contraband drugs were supplied to him by the present petitioner and he can show the place near the over-bridge of the Hanumangarh town where the drugs were supplied by the present petitioner whose mobile number is 9413398000. The information was taken down as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further stated in his statement that the call details of the petitioner's phone number were taken out and as per the call details, it was found that the petitioner was in contact with the principal accused Mahendra Singh from whom the contraband drugs have been recovered. To these statements in Chief, nothing contrary has been recorded in cross-examination of this witness. 7. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not involved with the recovery of the contraband drugs which is in huge quantity. To these statements in Chief, nothing contrary has been recorded in cross-examination of this witness. 7. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not involved with the recovery of the contraband drugs which is in huge quantity. It is also noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable in the present case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the bail cancellation applications preferred by the NCB and Union of India. The bail applications of the accused respondents in these cases were allowed/granted by the High Courts taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the CDR details of some of the co-accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial and therefore, the SLPs preferred by the NCB seeking cancellation of the bails granted to the respective respondents were dismissed as meritless. Whereas, in the present case, there is a positive evidence against the petitioner of having spoken to the principal accused Mahendra Singh and a positive statement of Mahendra Singh including the fact that those contraband drugs recovered from him were supplied by the present petitioner. 8. Considering the fact that huge quantity of contraband drugs have been recovered in the present case and looking to the seriousness of the charges as also the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the present second bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.