JUDGMENT : 1. The applicant herein seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with F. No: NCB/AZU/CR-07/2021 subsequently, NDPS Case No: 05 of 2021 filed for the offence punishable under Section 8©, 20(b)(ii)(C), 27(A) read with Section 29 and 35 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered with District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application is that, the applicant Muddassar Fazluraheman Kadri @ Mudhu Bapu, alleged to have committed the offence under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 27(A) read with Section 29 and 35 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity). 2.1 Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, received information that on 31.05.2021 at about 16:10 hours, two persons namely Bismillahkhan Pathan, residents Shah-e-alam, Ahmedabad and Muzzafarkhan @ Lalio Pathan, resident of Shahpur, Ahmedabad are transporting huge amount of charas in Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle, registration no. GJ-01-KS-3395 and both the persons are coming from Ajmer (Rajasthan) in the said vehicle between 20:30 hours to 21:30 hours, passing through Zundal Circle, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. 2.2 After following the mandatory provisions of the Act, team was formed under the supervision of Mr. Anoopkumar Gupta, Intelligence Officer, N.C.B., Ahmedabad and went to the place and on seeing the alleged vehicle, it was stopped by the officer and there were six persons sitting in the car and in the presence of the independent panchas the car was intercepted and search was carried out. The accused Bismillahkhan Pathan opened the trunk of the vehicle and it was found that 11 packets of charas hidden inside the trunk of the vehicle and after following the mandatory provisions, 10.730 kilogram charas was found and seized by the authority. 2.3 The Authority has recorded statements of Bismillahkhan Pathan and Muzzafarkhan @ Lalio Pathan under Section 67 of the Act on 01.06.2021. During the investigation, it reveals that the contraband seized charas was supplied by one Javed and Manzoor, resident of Anantnaag, Jammu & Kashmir. The investigation further reveals that out of 10.730 kilogram seized charas, 5.00 kg sent by Manzoor and 5.5 kg was sent by Javed. During the investigation, it reveals that the contraband seized charas was supplied by one Javed and Manzoor, resident of Anantnaag, Jammu & Kashmir. The investigation further reveals that out of 10.730 kilogram seized charas, 5.00 kg sent by Manzoor and 5.5 kg was sent by Javed. During the interrogation of accused Bismillahkan Pathan, it was found that he had to deliver 5 kg charas to accused no.3 Faruk Sai and 3.5 kg to the present applicant Muddassar Kadri, whereas, 2 kg he had to retain for himself. It was further revealed that the seized charas procured from a truck driver at RICCO Industrial Area in Kishangadh, Rajasthan. It further reveals that to procure the seized charas, the applicant herein came at Ajmer in a separate vehicle and stayed at Star Hotel, Delhi Gate, Ajmer. During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused no.1 Bismillahkhan, along with the present applicant, accused no.2 Muzaffarkhan @ Lalia, accused no.3 Faruk Sai, accused no.4 Tosifahmad Kadri, hatched a plan to procure, transport and traffic of charas from one Mr. Javed and Manjur of Jammu & Kashmir to Ahmedabad via Rajasthan for which, they had paid huge amount to the supplier Manzoor and Javed. 2.4 During the course of investigation, the authority has obtained call details recording of the accused and other persons and also recorded the statements of Hotel Manager, who has admitted that the applicant herein stayed at Star hotel at Ajmer and during his stay, the accused no.1 Bismillahkhan and accused no.2 Muzzafarkhan came at the hotel to meet the present applicant and on seeing their photographs, he identified all the accused present over there at hotel. The authority has recorded the statement of Khalifa Mohammad Faruk @ Faruk Sai and Tosif Ahmed Kadri @ Tosif Bapu as they are associated with the accused Bismillahkhan for the illicit business of charas and have paid huge amount to the supplier and lastly, both have been arrested. 2.5 In the aforesaid facts, considering the material collected during the course of investigation, the name of the applicant emerges as the main conspirator and part receiver of the seized drug. 2.5 In the aforesaid facts, considering the material collected during the course of investigation, the name of the applicant emerges as the main conspirator and part receiver of the seized drug. The authority served three notices under Section 67 of the Act, in which, one summons was received by his wife, whereas, second summons which was sent through post returned back due to non-receipt by him and third summons was also pasted at the conspicuous place of his home in the presence of neighbour and police official of Isanpur Police Station as no member of his family was ready to receive the summons and did not appear before the investigating officer. 2.6 The complaint is filed under Section 36A(d)(4) of the Act under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 27(A) read with Section 29 and 35 of the Act against in all four persons namely (i) Bismillahkhan Pathan, (ii) Muzzafarkhan @ Lalia, (iii) Khalifa Mahammad @ Faruk Sai and (iv) Tosif Ahmed Kadri @ Tosif Bapu, before the Special Court, Gandhinagar, Gujarat which registered as N.D.P.S. Sessions Case No.5 of 2021. The prosecution has specifically averred in para-46 of the complaint that the complainant reserves its right to file another complaint against Muddassar Kadri and the persons of Jammu & Kashmir as the police authority of Anantnaag Police Station, Jammu & Kashmir reported that the persons are not traceable at the address mentioned in the summons. 3. In the aforesaid background facts, the applicant herein instead of remaining present before the investigating agency, had preferred anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar which came to be rejected vide order dated 15.01.2022. While rejecting the application, it was observed that there is sufficient material, against the applicant involving him in the alleged crime and the applicant herein was in constant touch with the accused and therefore, considering the societal interest and interest of the investigation to unearth the case and his non-cooperation to the investigating agency, the applicant herein is not entitled for the relief of pre-arrest bail. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Sessions Court, Gandhinagar, the applicant herein has preferred the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973. 5. Mr. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Sessions Court, Gandhinagar, the applicant herein has preferred the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973. 5. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Counsel, representing the applicant urged following submissions: (i) the applicant herein has not committed any offence, whatsoever, as alleged, in the complaint, as the complaint is totally false and fabricated; (ii) there is no recovery of contraband charas from the applicant; (iii) the applicant is not yet arrayed as accused. Referring to the complaint, it was submitted that the N.C.B. after conclusion of the investigation filed a complaint against four accused without showing the applicant as accused and therefore, the authority is not entitled to object the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. In this context, it was urged that even after filing of the complaint, the authority is not legally empowered/authorized to file the separate complaint for joining the applicant as once the Special Court has taken the cognizance of the offence, the only recourse is available to them to file application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C for joining the accused. (iv) the applicant herein is sought to be implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of confessional statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act. Relying on the verdict of three judge bench of the Apex Court in Toofansingh vs. State of Madras ( 2021 4 SCC 1 ) to submit that the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been held inadmissible and therefore, only material available with the authority is the record of C.D.R. showing that the applicant called the other accused between April to June, 2021. However, the evidence of C.D.R. is no evidence in the eye of law. The accused Bismillahkhan is the childhood friend of the applicant herein and therefore, naturally, there is evidence to effect that the applicant had called the principal accused during the alleged period as referred in the complaint. (v) The vehicle in which contraband charas was found was not belong to the applicant. (vi) The applicant has not made any money transaction with the accused or their relatives and as such, there is no allegation and there is no documentary or oral evidence to show that he made money transaction to anyone. (v) The vehicle in which contraband charas was found was not belong to the applicant. (vi) The applicant has not made any money transaction with the accused or their relatives and as such, there is no allegation and there is no documentary or oral evidence to show that he made money transaction to anyone. (vii) The applicant was not in Ahmedabad when the goods were seized and he reached after three days of the alleged incident and for the initial three months even he was not summoned by the investigating agency. (viii) The embargo of Section 37 is not applicable to the applicant. (ix) Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the applicant was present twice before the authority and statements under Section 67 of the Act were recorded by the authority and therefore, so far role of the applicant is concerned, now nothing remains to investigate the case and his custodial interrogation is not necessary and he is readily available for the investigation as well as at the time of trial and having deep roots in the society and as such, he does not have any past antecedents of like nature and therefore, no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant herein and therefore, case is made out for exercising extraordinary power to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant relied upon the following decisions: (i) State of (NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. (2022 Live Law (SC) page 69) (ii) Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (MANU/SC/0796/2018) (iii) Bharat Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (MANU/SC/1240/2021) (iv) Abdul Mohammed Shaikh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Criminal Bail Application No.102 of 2020 dated 13.05.2021, High Court of Bombay) 7. Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 N.C.B. submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the applicant, as the applicant and coaccused had acted in connivance with each other and they were closely in touch with each other on their cellphone for which ample evidence in the form of C.D.R. collected by the authority to show that the applicant herein is involved in the alleged offence. Learned counsel Mr. Learned counsel Mr. Pandya reiterating the facts of the affidavit filed by the Raiding Officer, contended that the applicant herein along with co-accused were stayed at different hotels in Ajmer and they met for executing of the conspiracy to procure the charas. So far role of the present applicant is concerned, learned Counsel Mr. Pandya submitted that three different cell numbers are registered in the name of the applicant and was in constant touch with the coaccused and supplier of the contraband for which he did not give any justification of calling to the persons of Jammu & Kashmir. Mr. Pandya, learned counsel further submitted that the applicant herein called thrice by issuing summon for recording his statement under Section 67 of the Act. However, he did not turned up before the authority and literally avoided the investigation. Mr. Pandya, learned counsel on this aspect submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the applicant herein remained present twice for recording his statement. Referring to the facts of the statement, he submitted that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation as still the supplier of the contraband are at run and therefore, to unearth the case at the root level, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Mr. Pandya, learned counsel submitted that, there is no legal bar either to file a fresh complaint against the applicant or to take available recourse in the law for arraigning the applicant in the case. Therefore, the contention on this aspect raised by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is not sustainable in law. 8. Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 relied upon the following decisions: (i) Union of India through N.C.B. Lucknow Vs. Md. Nawazkhan (Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2021 SC) (ii) State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh etc. (2020 (0) AIJEL-SC- 65669) (iii) Union of India Vs. Pratik Shukla (2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67126) 9. I have carefully analyzed the rival submissions and perused the entire records. 10. In the facts of the present case, on 30.05.2021, the Charas weighing 10.700 kg, was found and recovered at the behest of accused no.1. Based on his confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act and call detail records, the name of the applicant herein was revealed, as he was closely in contact with accused no.1 to 4 through his three cellphone numbers namely 7016153417, 7778822822, 9712972822. Based on his confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act and call detail records, the name of the applicant herein was revealed, as he was closely in contact with accused no.1 to 4 through his three cellphone numbers namely 7016153417, 7778822822, 9712972822. During further investigation, it was revealed that the applicant herein had contacted the persons who have supplied charas namely Javed and Manzoor on their cell no. 78889790339 (Jio, Jammu & Kashmir). The applicant herein summoned by the respondent authority for recording statement under Section 67 of the Act, however, he did not turned up for investigation before the authority and avoided the process of investigation and thereafter, he moved an application for anticipatory bail before the sessions court concerned and the same was rejected and thereafter, he approached this Court. After hearing the parties, the applicant herein directed to remain present before the authority concerned for recording his statement and was remained present twice before the authority. During his interrogation, it reveals that from 07.03.2021 to 01.06.2021, he called through his cellphones to Javed and Manzoor, the suppliers of seized drugs. It is not in dispute that on 30.05.2021 and 31.05.2021, the applicant was stayed at Hotel Star at Ajmer, where he met accused no.1 and 2. 11. It is alleged that the applicant herein in connivance with the co-accused, made a plan to procure seized charas from the supplier and as a part of conspiracy, he travelled from Ahmedabad to Ajmer and procured the contraband charas from Kishangadh, Rajasthan to Gujarat from the supplier of Jammu & Kashmir. 12. In the aforesaid facts, if we examined the role of the applicant herein in the alleged offence, the following aspects emerges, pointing the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence: (i) it is submitted that the accused no.1 is his childhood friend and therefore, he was closely in contact on his mobile phone. However, CDR records indicates that the applicant herein was constantly in touch with the accused no.2 to 4 and the supplier of charas and he was present at Ajmer. The applicant herein is not doing any business at Jammu & Kashmir, nor, any relative is residing there. However, CDR records indicates that the applicant herein was constantly in touch with the accused no.2 to 4 and the supplier of charas and he was present at Ajmer. The applicant herein is not doing any business at Jammu & Kashmir, nor, any relative is residing there. (ii) the applicant herein met the co-accused no.1 and 2 at Ajmer and on the next day, the raid was successfully executed and contraband charas seized and recovered in the jurisdiction of Gujarat, at City Gandhinagar. (iii) the applicant herein called thrice by the agency for interrogation and recording of statement, however, he intentionally avoided the process. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of prima-facie view that there is reasonable ground to believe that the applicant herein has committed the alleged offence. In view of the aforesaid reasons as discussed herein above, it cannot be said that the applicant herein has been falsely sought to be implicated in the alleged offence. The applicant though remained present before the authority for interrogation, however, after scrutiny of his reply, it cannot be said that he has cooperated in the investigation. The investigation is still under way so far supplier is concerned. 14. The contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not arraigned as an accused in the complaint and therefore, the agency is now not entitled to object to the grant of anticipatory bail. On this aspect, this Court is of view that how and under what circumstances, the applicant herein would be implicated in the complaint, is the look after of the agency and this issue cannot to be decided in the anticipatory bail. If we accept the contention, then, the present application is premature as according to say of the applicant, he is not arraigned as an accused in the complaint. Thus, the technical contention raised by learned Senior Counsel having no any merits. 15. The second contention is that the contraband charas was not found from the possession of the applicant, nor the vehicle in question belongs to the applicant and there is no allegation that he made money transaction with supplier. Thus, the technical contention raised by learned Senior Counsel having no any merits. 15. The second contention is that the contraband charas was not found from the possession of the applicant, nor the vehicle in question belongs to the applicant and there is no allegation that he made money transaction with supplier. In the facts of the present case, it is alleged that the applicant being a part of criminal conspiracy, made a plan to procure the contraband charas and to execute the same, he was present at Ajmer, Rajasthan and was closely in touch with accused no.1 to 4 and supplier. Therefore, it is not necessary to show his involvement by direct evidence, but from the circumstances, as discussed herein above and considering the conduct of the applicant, prima-facie, case is made out for his involvement in the offence. Thus, contention raised is not acceptable. The authorities relied by the applicant are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it pertains to case of regular bail. 16. Reference can be made of the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh & Anr. (1999 SCC Criminal 1522). In para-7 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed this: “it is to be born in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while, those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or inflicting death – blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable; it cause deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue with nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely.” 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, peculiar to the instant case, as have been analyzed herein above, it would inappropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant in view of the seriousness of the allegations against him and to public interest and therefore, no case is made out for exercise of power to grant anticipatory bail. 18. The present application, is hereby rejected. The interim protection granted for a limited period to record the statement of the applicant under Section 67 of the Act stands vacated. 19. 18. The present application, is hereby rejected. The interim protection granted for a limited period to record the statement of the applicant under Section 67 of the Act stands vacated. 19. The observations made herein above, shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application. 20. After pronouncement of the order, learned Senior Counsel prays for continuation of interim protection so as to enable the applicant to approach the higher Court. In view of the reasons stated in the order, the request is declined.