JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - The present Second Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.81 of 2021, registered with Police Station Muni-ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal, for the offence under Section 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1985'). 2. The First Bail Application No.360 of 2022 was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench on 12.10.2022. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 02.10.2021, Sub-Inspector Vikas Shukla along with other police personnel, were present for a checking in the area of their Police Chowki, where he received a secret information that two persons are coming in a Maruti Zen car, bearing Registration No.UA07-4014 carrying 'Charas', and, they can be apprehended, if raid is conducted. Accordingly, a raid was conducted. The said vehicle was intercepted. The police party found that two persons were sitting in the said car. The present applicant was sitting on the seat next to the driver. On enquiry, they disclosed their names and addresses. They disclosed that they were carrying Charas. Sub-Inspector Vikas Shukla apprised their legal rights whether they wish to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The present applicant gave his consent for being searched before any Officer. At about 20.08 hrs, Mr. R.K. Chamoli, Circle Officer of Police, Narendra Nagar, was informed by Sub-Inspector Vikas Shukla on his mobile number 9411112788. After twenty minutes, Mr. R.K. Chamoli came at the spot. A search was conducted in his presence. Charas was recovered from the personal search of the present applicant. On weighing, the weight of Charas recovered from the present applicant was found to be 1 kg 170 grams. The said car was also searched. During the search of the said car, an electronic scale was recovered. In spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. Videography was also done on the spot. The said recovered contraband was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 4. Heard Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned AGA for the State. 5. Mr. Videography was also done on the spot. The said recovered contraband was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 4. Heard Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned AGA for the State. 5. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the present applicant - accused, submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; nothing was recovered from the possession of the present applicant; the secret information was received by a non-gazetted officer, therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the said Act, 1985 would be applicable, whereas, the provisions of Section 42 have not been complied with. 6. In support of the said submissions, Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate, has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'G. Srinivas Goud vs. State of A.P.' (2005) 8 SCC 183 , 'Darshan Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 14 SCC 358 and 'Sekhar Suman Verma vs. Superintendent of Narcotics Control Bureau and Another' (2016) 11 SCC 368 . 7. Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the State, opposed the Second Bail Application and submitted that the present Second Bail Application is not maintainable. 8. On 12.10.2022, Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate, had argued before the Co-ordinate Bench, 'It is a case of non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act, because the Officer, who was heading the raiding team was not an Officer authorized under Section 41 of the Act. He was an Officer, who could have conducted search under Section 42 of the Act, but, he did not give a report of search as required under Section 42 of the Act.' 9. On the said date, i.e. on 12.10.2022 Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the State, had submitted, 'It is not a case of application of Section 42 of the Act. In fact, it is a case of recovery from personal search and the applicant was given an option to be searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer.' 10. On 12.10.2022, the Co-ordinate Bench had made the following order:- '6. It is true that the raiding team was being headed by one Sub-Inspector, but the fact remains that before recovery the Gazetted Officer was called. 7. On 12.10.2022, the Co-ordinate Bench had made the following order:- '6. It is true that the raiding team was being headed by one Sub-Inspector, but the fact remains that before recovery the Gazetted Officer was called. 7. Under Rule 76 of the U.P. Narcotics Drugs Rules, 1986, all gazetted officers of police may exercise the powers under sub-Section (2) of Section 41 of the Act. 8. In the case of Sekhar Suman Verma Vs. Superintendent of Narcotics Control Bureau and another, (2016) 11 SCC 368 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment in the case of M. Prabhulal Vs Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2003) 8 SCC 449 , wherein it is held that when a search is conducted by the gazetted officer himself acting under Section 41 of the Act, it was not necessary to comply all the requirements of Section 42 of the Act. 9. It is true that when the vehicle was intercepted, till that moment there was no gazetted officer, but the search was made in the presence of the gazetted officer. Therefore, there is no question of application of Section 42 of the Act. 10. The recovery was made from the personal search. The applicant was given option under Section 50 of the Act. The allegedly recovered quantity is commercial. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 12. The bail application is dismissed.' 11. As per the Table preferred in terms of Section 2(xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the said Act, 1985, 100 grams of Charas is small quantity and greater than 1 kg Charas is commercial quantity (Entry No.23). 12. The preamble of the Act, 1985 shows that the object of this Act is to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs and to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. 13. At this stage, it seems appropriate to notice to the provision of Section 37 of the Act, 1985. 13. At this stage, it seems appropriate to notice to the provision of Section 37 of the Act, 1985. The provision of Section 37 of the Act, 1985 is to the following effects:- 'Section 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 that he 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'. 14. Section 37 of the Act, 1985 contains specific provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain offences enumerated under the said Section. They are- (i) In the case of a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19, (ii) under Section 24, (iii) under Section 27-A, and (iv) for offences involving commercial quantity. 15. The accusation in the present case is with regard to the commercial quantity. Once the public prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a person accused of the enumerated offences, 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other enactment, (i) the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence. In Criminal Appeal No(s) 154-157 of 2020, State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held on 24.01.2020 that the expression 'reasonable grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds, and (ii) that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In Criminal Appeal No(s) 154-157 of 2020, State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held on 24.01.2020 that the expression 'reasonable grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds, and (ii) that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. The non-obstante clause with which this Section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail. To check the menace of dangers drugs and psychotropic substances flooding the market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of the offences under the Act should not be released on bail during the trial unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 of the Act, 1985 are satisfied. 16. In State of M.P. Vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that negation of bail is the rule and its grants an exception under (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1) of the Act, 1985. 17. In Criminal Appeal No(s) 154-157 of 2020 (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that liberal approach in the matter of bail under the N.D.P.S. Act is uncalled for. 18. Therefore, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that mandatory conditions, as mentioned above, have been satisfied. From the perusal of the evidence, collected during investigation so far, it prima facie appears that the applicant was involved in this offence. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 19. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad, (2001)7 SCC 673 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law. 20. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, '.....Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. 20. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, '.....Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. ......' 21. Therefore, it is not open to the applicant to make successive bail applications even on the grounds already rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench earlier. 22. On overall consideration of the application and also in the fact that any change in circumstances is not established, after rejection of the first bail application on merit, I do not find any change in circumstances to entertain present second bail application. The second bail application does not deserve to be entertained. Consequently, the present Second Bail Application is rejected. 23. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision, in the light of the facts, provided by the parties at this stage, as to whether the bail application should be allowed or not. The said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.'