ORDER : 1. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 113 of 2020 dated 13.8.2020 under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short the Act), registered at Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. Petition is in custody since 13.8.2020. 2. The trial against petitioner is pending before learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala. The case against petitioner is that on 12.8.2020 at about 7.15 p.m. he was spotted by a police party near Ram Gopal Temple on road leading to “Fauji Pahari” Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. He was identified to be the same person, who was involved in FIR No. 105 of 2020 under Section 21 of NDPS Act, registered at the same police station i.e. Police Station, Damtal, District Kanga, H.P. 3. On noticing police officials, petitioner took out a packet from underneath his T-shirt and after throwing it towards the bushes, started walking briskly. Petitioner was apprehended by the police officials. On inquiry about the thrown packet, petitioner got perplexed. The packet thrown by the petitioner was got picked from him and on its search, 600 capsules were recovered. Further personal search of petitioner was conducted in presence of a gazetted officer and heroin weighing 6.96 grams was recovered. After recovery and seizure proceedings “Ruka” was sent to police station and FIR No. 113 of 2020 was registered. 4. After chemical analysis, the capsules were found to contain “Tramadol Hydrochloride.” Total weight of the capsules was 387.600 grams and the net weight of powder contained therein was found 382.200 grams. The substance found from the person of petitioner was analyzed as heroin. Petitioner was formally arrested. 5. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the bail petitioner and Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-State and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. The contraband “Tramadol Hydrochloride” recovered in the case is commercial quantity and heroin recovered is intermediate quantify. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable in the facts of the case. 7. In State of Kerala and Another vs. Rajesh and Others, 2020 (12) SCC 122 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “19. 6. The contraband “Tramadol Hydrochloride” recovered in the case is commercial quantity and heroin recovered is intermediate quantify. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable in the facts of the case. 7. In State of Kerala and Another vs. Rajesh and Others, 2020 (12) SCC 122 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.” 8. Similarly, in Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2018 (13) SCC 813 , the three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “4. Similarly, in Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2018 (13) SCC 813 , the three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “4. Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when a person is accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity, he shall not be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and in case a Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Materials on record are to be seen and the antecedents of the accused are to be examined to enter such a satisfaction. These limitations are in addition to those prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the law makers have consciously put such stringent restrictions on the discretion available to the court while considering application for release of a person on bail. It is unfortunate that the provision has not been noticed by the High Court. And it is more unfortunate that the same has not been brought to the notice of the Court.” 9. Thus, in the teeth of Section 37 of NDPS Act accused can be released on bail in the cases involving commercial quantity of contraband if all three conditions are satisfied vis-à-vis opportunity of opposing the bail is granted to the prosecutor, court records satisfaction to the effect that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused not guilty of such offence and that he/she with certainty can be believed not to commit same offence during the period of bail. 10. Coming to the facts of the case, there is nothing to suggest that the implication of petitioner in the present case is false. Petitioner was noticed throwing a packet by the police officials and commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride was recovered therefrom. His personal search is stated to have been conducted in presence of a gazetted officer which lead to recovery of 6.96 grams of heroin. Petitioner was noticed throwing a packet by the police officials and commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride was recovered therefrom. His personal search is stated to have been conducted in presence of a gazetted officer which lead to recovery of 6.96 grams of heroin. Though, the evidence collected by investigating agency is not to be scanned minutely, nonetheless, it can be taken into account for the purposes of prima-facie assessment as to seriousness and gravity of allegations against the bail petitioner. On the basis of material on record, it cannot be said that there are grounds for believing that petitioner is not guilty of offence under the Act by keeping in possession a commercial quantity of contraband. 11. The status report submitted on behalf of respondent further reveals that petitioner is accused in three cases under the NDPS Act besides others under different acts. Noticeably, petitioner was apprehended in a case registered vide FIR No. 105 of 2020 on 5.8.2020 for commission of offence under Section 21 of NDPS Act by the police officials of Police Station, Damtal. Again after one week i.e. on 12.8.2020, he was apprehended in the present case. The repeated indulgence of petitioner in commission of offences affords reason to hold that petitioner cannot be believed to not to commit the offence during the period of bail, if so released. 12. Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. MP (M) No. 1768 of 2021 dated 22.9.2021, titled as Prem Sagar @ Pema vs. State of H.P. wherein the accused possessing commercial quantity of contraband was enlarged on bail. With due deference to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same cannot serve the cause of petitioner for the reasons, firstly that it does not settle the law and secondly, the order was passed in peculiar facts of the case. The petitioner therein was found to be suffering from prolonged illness and such reason had prevailed upon the Hon’ble Court to enlarge the petitioner therein on bail. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further tried to persuade this Court with the plea that it has been almost one year and ten months since the petitioner is in custody. It has been submitted that even the charges have not been framed as yet in the trial. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further tried to persuade this Court with the plea that it has been almost one year and ten months since the petitioner is in custody. It has been submitted that even the charges have not been framed as yet in the trial. On this score, this Court has been called upon to exercise its constitutional powers to protect the right of freedom of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on a judgment passed by three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, 2021 (3) SCC 713 and specifically paragraph-18 thereof, which reads as under: “18. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA perse does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a Statue as well as the powers exercisable under Constitutional Jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.” 14. After considering the above noted judgment in K.A. Najeeb, this Court is of considered view that petitioner cannot draw any help even from the same. In that case, the accused was already in custody for more than five and half years. His co-accused had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment ranging upto eight years. 276 witnesses remained to be examined. All these factors had persuaded the Hon’ble Supreme Court to concur with the order of High Court of Kerala granting the right of liberty to the accused therein in the peculiar facts of the case. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb (supra) has drawn distinction between Section 43-D(5) of UAPA and Section 37 of NDPS Act. All these factors had persuaded the Hon’ble Supreme Court to concur with the order of High Court of Kerala granting the right of liberty to the accused therein in the peculiar facts of the case. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb (supra) has drawn distinction between Section 43-D(5) of UAPA and Section 37 of NDPS Act. Section 43-D(5) of UAPA was the subject of interpretation in K.A. Najeeb, yet purposely, Hon’ble Supreme Court has drawn distinction of said provision with Section 37 of NDPS Act. In paragraph-20 of K.A. Najeeb, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “20. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the Respondent on bail is that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS. Unlike the NDPS where the competent Court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such precondition under the UAPA. Instead, Section 43D (5) of UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion etc.” 16. As already held above, this is not a case where there is no prima-facie material against the petitioner. Additionally, the repeated indulgence of petitioner in various offences including offence under the NDPS Act is an important factor to determine that petitioner can be believed not to commit the same offence during the period of bail. 17. In light of above discussion, petitioner is not held entitled for bail. Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed. 18. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.