JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in FIR No. 113/2021 for offences under section 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act read with Sections 3/181 and 196(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act registered with Police Station, Srigufwara. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 19.12.2021, the police had laid a Naka at Poshkeri crossing, Bijbehara. They stopped a trawler bearing Registration No. JK02AV-1795 that was proceeding from Poshkeri towardsBijbehara. During checking of the trawler, 23 nylon bags were found loaded in it. These bags were found to contain fukki (Poppy Straw) like substance. The driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Rakesh Kumar and he could not give any justification for possession of contraband substance. Accordingly, FIR No. 113/2021 was registered and the investigation was set into motion. Accused Rakesh Kumar made a disclosure statement that he had loaded these 23 bags containing Poppy Straw from the house of accused Mohd. Amin Malik, the petitioner herein, and that the said Poppy Straw was to be sold to a Sikh gentleman who is a resident of Ferozpur Punjab. The petitioner was taken into custody and he made a disclosure statement in the presence of an Executive Magistrate stating that he had obtained these 23 bags containing Poppy Straw from co-accused Irshad Ahmad Das who was also taken into custody. After investigation of the case, it was found that the petitioner andco-accused are indulging in illicit trade of contraband substances. Thus offences under section 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act read with Sections 3/181 and 196(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act were found established against all the accused including the petitioner herein. The challan is stated to have been laid before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag. 3. It appears that the petitioner had approached the trial court for grant of bail but his bail application has been declined in terms of order dated 21.05.2022 whereas bail application of co-accused Irshad Ahmad Das has been accepted in terms of order dated 13.05.2022. 4. It has been contended in the petition that the petitioner has been booked only on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused and that nothing has been recovered from his possession. 4. It has been contended in the petition that the petitioner has been booked only on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused and that nothing has been recovered from his possession. It has been submitted that the confession of a co-accused is not admissible in evidence and, as such, there was no material on record for the trial court to decline the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail. It is also contended that the co-accused Irshad Ahmad Das, who had also been booked on the basis of a confessional statement made by the co-accused, has been granted bail. The petitioner has also sought bail on the ground of his health condition and it is stated that he is a senior citizen suffering from various ailments which pose great threat to his life. Copies of the medical record in this regard have been placed on record. In support of the contentions urged by the petitioner, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments: I) Babu Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.; (1978) 1 SCC 579 ; II) Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830 ; III) Rayees Ahmad Dar v. UT of J&K (Bail App No. 05/2022 decided on 21.05.2022). 5. No reply has been filed by the respondent despite availing a number of opportunities. However, the respondent has the latest health status report of the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. As per the prosecution case, as already noted, commercial quantity of contraband substance has been recovered from the possession of co-accused Rakesh Kumar. The petitioner has been booked in this case by the investigating agency by taking resort to the provisions contained in Section 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging that the petitioner is a party to the criminal conspiracy relating to the offence of possession and dealing with contraband substance. 8. So far as the grant of bail in cases involving possession of commercial quantity of contraband is concerned, the Court has to adhere to the procedure and guidelines provided under the provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. 8. So far as the grant of bail in cases involving possession of commercial quantity of contraband is concerned, the Court has to adhere to the procedure and guidelines provided under the provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under: "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and tha the is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail". From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in the cases involving offences relating to commercial quantity of contraband substances, in addition to the restrictions imposed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, certain other conditions have been imposed on the power of the Court to grant bail. These conditions include a prior notice to the Public Prosecutor who has to be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application. Further the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person seeking bail is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 9. The expression "reasonable grounds" has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 , in the following manner: "7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. 9. The expression "reasonable grounds" has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 , in the following manner: "7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the public prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far the present accused-respondent is concerned, are (1) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based for reasonable grounds. 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". 10. Again, in State of Kerala & Ors. v. Rajesh & Ors., (2020) 12 SCC 122 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: "21. 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". 11. The Supreme Court has recently, while relying upon the aforesaid two judgments, in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 Live Law (SC) 613, observed as under: "14. 11. The Supreme Court has recently, while relying upon the aforesaid two judgments, in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 Live Law (SC) 613, observed as under: "14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable grounds" used in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. 15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail". 12. From the aforesaid analysis of the law on the subject it is clear that for the limited purpose of considering the bail application of the petitioner, this Court has to consider the material on record so as to ascertain whether such facts and circumstances are existing that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person has not committed the offence for which he has been booked. The Court has to be satisfied that there are credible and plausible grounds for believing that the accused is not involved in the offence. 13. In the light of the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, let us now consider the material on record. There can be no dispute to the fact that a person cannot be convicted on the basis of confessional statement of aco-accused. 13. In the light of the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, let us now consider the material on record. There can be no dispute to the fact that a person cannot be convicted on the basis of confessional statement of aco-accused. The law on the subject is very clear. The confessional statement of a co-accused has been time and again held to be inadmissible in evidence. The Supreme Court has held so in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 SCC Online SC 882 and this Court has reiterated the same position in the case of Rayees Ahmad Dar (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the petitioner could not be implicated on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Rakesh Kumar but then we have to ascertain as to whether there is any other admissible material/evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. 14. The trial court record shows that during investigation of the case statement of PW Mushtaq Ahmad Khanday has been recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He has stated that he had to pay a sum of Rs.1.50/lacs to the petitioner in connection with some transaction regarding purchase of fruit trees and out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- remained outstanding. He has further stated that at the instance of petitioner, he transferred a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to a particular account. This bank account was found to be that of wife of co-accused, Rakesh Kumar. Thus, there is material on record to suggest that there has been financial transaction between the petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Kumar. There is also the statement of PW Munawar Bashir recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., who has stated that he had given his sim card to the petitioner and from that sim card, the petitioner was found to have contacted the co-accused. 15. So, it is not a case where involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is solely based upon the confessional statement of the co-accused Rakesh Kumar but whatever has been stated by the co-accused Rakesh Kumar has been substantiated by the statements of at least two witnesses and the bank transactions, which are certainly admissible in evidence. 15. So, it is not a case where involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is solely based upon the confessional statement of the co-accused Rakesh Kumar but whatever has been stated by the co-accused Rakesh Kumar has been substantiated by the statements of at least two witnesses and the bank transactions, which are certainly admissible in evidence. In the case of co-accused Irshad Ahmad Das, the only link between him and the alleged crime was the statement of the co-accused, which, as already stated, is not admissible in evidence and it was in those circumstances that the learned trial court enlarged the said accused on bail. The case of the petitioner herein stands on a different footing in view of what has been stated hereinbefore. 16. Thus, even without the confessional statement of co-accused Rakesh Kumar, there is other admissible evidence on record to link the petitioner with the alleged crime, as such, this Court is not persuaded to observe that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. Such an assumption at this stage would be premature when the evidence is yet to be led. 17. In view of the narrow parameters of bail available under section 37 of the NDPS Act, it would be highly unsafe to conclude that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences for which he has been booked so as to admit him to bail. Merely because the petitioner has been in custody for about 7/8 months does not entitle him to the grant of bail. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail on merits. 18. The other ground urged by the petitioner is that he is suffering from serious ailments, as such, he should be granted bail on health grounds. In this regard it would be necessary to have a look at the health status report submitted by Incharge Subsidiary Jail, Mattan, Anantnag, which has been placed on record by the respondents. The relevant portion of the report is reproduced as under: "In order to ascertain the latest health status report of petitioner/inmate, the inmate has been referred to Govt. Medical College, Anantnag, for medical check-up/examination. The relevant portion of the report is reproduced as under: "In order to ascertain the latest health status report of petitioner/inmate, the inmate has been referred to Govt. Medical College, Anantnag, for medical check-up/examination. The doctors at GMC, Anantnag, have again examined the said inmate, some tests which were already done as advised by the doctors of GMC, Anantnag, have been re--examined by the doctors at GMC, Anantnag, and further advised for tests which have been done in respect of the said inmate, the IUSG report reveals that there are some cysts, in the left kidney of the said inmate (lower pole cortical cyst measuring 4.5 x 5 cm and upper pole cortical cyst measuring 43 x 42 mm) (USG report enclosed).Moreover the blood tests already done and some tests which have been done as advised by the doctors, which reveals that the blood tests i.e. lipid profile, uric acid, blood sugar are abnormal. It is pertinent to mention here that the health condition of the inmate remained worriable since his lodgement in the jail because of his disorder/infection in kidney and abnormal levels of lipids, blood sugar and uric acid in blood. Moreover the regular blood pressure checking is being done in respect of the inmate and the blood pressure of the inmate remains high (around 160/120).The said inmate is under regular treatment of GMC, Anantnag. However, the health condition of the inmate is bad due to his chronic ailment. Though the inmate is taking the medication as per the prescriptions of doctors but there is no relief in the health condition of the inmate. Presently the health condition of the inmate is not well". 19. From the aforesaid report, it is clear that the petitioner is suffering from disorder/infection in his kidney and he has abnormal levels of lipids, blood sugar and uric acid in the blood. His blood pressure remains high and despite regular check up his condition is not improving because of his chronic ailments. The jail authorities have clearly indicated in the report that the present health condition of the petitioner is not good. 20. Although the petitioner, because of his involvement in an offence relating to commercial quantity of contraband, is not entitled to grant of bail on merits yet the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come into play while considering his bail application on health grounds. 20. Although the petitioner, because of his involvement in an offence relating to commercial quantity of contraband, is not entitled to grant of bail on merits yet the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come into play while considering his bail application on health grounds. The power to grant bail has been vested in this Court by virtue of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS curtail the power of this Court to grant bail on merits in a case where a person has been booked for an offence involving commercial quantity of contraband. The power to grant bail on health grounds is not subject to the restrictions contained in the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, this Court is well within its jurisdiction to consider the bail application of the petitioner on health grounds even after holding that he is not entitled to grant of bail on merits. 21. Having regard to the present health status of the petitioner, his incarceration in jail at this moment of time is likely to endanger his life, as the petitioner requires immediate medical attention and constant monitoring which is possible only either at home or inside the hospital. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant temporary bail on health grounds in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to temporary bail on health grounds for a period of eight weeks from today subject to the following conditions: (i) That he shall furnish bail personal bond in the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac (rupees on lac) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court; (ii) That he shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing; (iii) That he shall not leave the territorial limits of Union Territory of J&K without prior permission of the trial court; (iv) That he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence; (v) That he shall use the concession of temporary bail for undergoing medical treatment. 22. After expiry of eight weeks, the petitioner shall surrender before the trial court. In case the petitioner needs extension of bail on health grounds, he shall apply to the trial court by placing on record the necessary medical record in this regard before the said court. 22. After expiry of eight weeks, the petitioner shall surrender before the trial court. In case the petitioner needs extension of bail on health grounds, he shall apply to the trial court by placing on record the necessary medical record in this regard before the said court. If and when such an application along with the medical record is made by the petitioner before the trial court, the same shall be considered by the said court in accordance with the law on its own merits. 23. The bail application shall stand disposed of. 24. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information and compliance. Disposed Of