JUDGMENT : 1. Since the above three bail applications of the accused-applicants pertain to common recovery, therefore, I am deciding all these applications by a common judgement. 2. Heard Mr. Farooq Ayoob (in C.M.B.A. No.12003 of 2019), Mr. Parmanand Gupta (in C.M.B.A. No.8991 of 2020) and Mr. Kapil Gupta (C.M.B.A. No.4019 of 2021), learned counsels appearing for the applicants and Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the DRI and also perused the material placed on record. 3. The applicant, Azeemul Hasan (in C.M.B.A. No.12003 of 2019) seeks bail in Case Crime No.06 of 2019, u/s 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Challaned by D.R.I. Lucknow, District- Lucknow, during the pendency of trial. 4. The applicants, Salman Ali (in C.M.B.A. No.8991 of 2020) and Sannu Lal (in C.M.B.A. No.4019 of 2021) seek bail in Case Crime No.06 of 2019, u/s 8/20/25/27-A/28/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station-Gomti Nagar, District-Lucknow, during the pendency of trial. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 5. On 1.5.2019 at about 09:00 AM, Sri Abhishek Pandey, Investigating Officer (I.O.) of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Office, Lucknow (DRI) received an information from the Deputy Director, Lucknow that a truck bearing No. UP21-CN-0242 carrying Ganja is coming from Orissa and likely to reach Lucknow soon and is destined to Moradabad. For intercepting the said truck, a special team was constituted after compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. Independent witnesses were taken on way from Telibagh, Lucknow and the said truck was intercepted on the same day i.e. on 1.5.2019 at about 03:30 PM. The said truck was being driven by the accused Sannu Lal and the other two accused, namely, Salman Ali and Azeemul Hasan were found sitting in the cabin of the truck. The accused persons confessed to be carrying contraband in the said truck. The compliance of Sections 42, 43 & 49 of NDPS Act is said to have been made by the arresting team. As the truck was intercepted at a public place, it was taken to the Zonal Office of DRI and the search of the said truck was taken in the presence of the witnesses there. After opening the screws of the seat beneath it, a cavity was found and from the said cavity, cubical shaped polythene packets were found. As the truck was intercepted at a public place, it was taken to the Zonal Office of DRI and the search of the said truck was taken in the presence of the witnesses there. After opening the screws of the seat beneath it, a cavity was found and from the said cavity, cubical shaped polythene packets were found. In all 90 packets were recovered from the said cavity and after weighing it, 323.98 kilograms of contraband were found in total. Out of 90 packets, 43 packets were found below 3 kg and 47 packets were found above 3 kg. The said packets were marked as P-1 to P-90. The packets pertains to below 3 kg of weight were divided into two lots of 40 and 3 in number. Likewise, the packets pertain to above 3 kg of weight were also divided into two lots of 40 and 7 in number. Thus, all 90 packets were segregated into 4 lots as per shape, size and weight for taking sample. Thereafter, samples were taken from each packets of the said four lots and after mixing them together, 2-2 samples (in duplicate) of 24-24 grams were prepared. The said samples were sealed at the same place and the memo was prepared. The Registration Certificate of the said truck was found in the name of accused-applicant Azeemul Hasan. It has further been alleged by the prosecution that during investigation, it was found that all the three accused persons are said to have been executing the directions of one Waseem, who is the resident of Moradabad. RIVAL CONTENTIONS 6. Learned counsels appearing for the respective applicants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. All the three applicants are residents of Uttar Pradesh and have nothing to do with the said contraband. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from their possession. The recovery has been made from cavity in the truck and not from the personal search. Learned counsels have further stated that the sample has been sent after a delay of seven days for chemical analysis. The said sample has not been taken from each packets rather a representative sample has been taken which is a violation of the Standing Order No.1/89. Learned counsels have further stated that the sample has been sent after a delay of seven days for chemical analysis. The said sample has not been taken from each packets rather a representative sample has been taken which is a violation of the Standing Order No.1/89. Learned counsels have also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , wherein it has been held that a confessional statement under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act will not be admissible in evidence. 7. Learned counsels for the applicants have further stated that there is no independent public witness to the said recovery to substantiate the prosecution version. Learned counsels have further stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52-A and 57 of NDPS Act. The trial could not be proceeded any further due to the prevalent Covid-19 situation. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya vs. National Investigation Agency, Criminal Appeal No(S). 1525 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No(s).6858 of 2021. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "8. The charges against the accused appellant are undoubtedly serious but the charges will have to be balanced with certain other factors like the period of incarceration which the appellant has undergone and the likelihood period within which the trial can be expected to be finally concluded. That apart, the appellant is 74 years of age. xxxx xxxx xxxx 12. This Court has consistently observed in its numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial is imperative and the undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time. The Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail. 13. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time. The Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail. 13. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice." 9. Learned counsel for the applicants has also stated that the applicants are in jail since three years i.e. on 2.5.2019 and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future due to heavy dockets. In support of his contention regarding long incarceration, he has also relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sanjiv Shankarrao Khade vs. Republic of India (CBI), Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4265 of 2021, wherein the applicant was in jail for four years and eight months and was enlarged on bail owing to long incarceration. 10. On the other hand, Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the DRI has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the accused Sannu Lal is the driver of the alleged truck whereas the accused Azeemul Hasan and Salman Ali were sitting in the cabin of alleged truck. The accused persons were travelling in the alleged truck and the contraband recovered was in their conscious possession having being concealed in the cavity inside the said truck. The recovered contraband is heavy in quantity and its estimated value in an open market is about Rs.48,59,700/-. He has further stated that the delay of 7 days in sending sample for chemical analysis is not an inordinate delay as there is nothing on record to suggest that any kind of interpolation with the sample at any point of time was made during the said period. There is no occasion to falsely implicate the accused-applicants by planting the alleged contraband. The accused-applicants were arrested from the spot. The samples of the alleged contraband were taken in the presence of the applicants and independent witnesses. There is no occasion to falsely implicate the accused-applicants by planting the alleged contraband. The accused-applicants were arrested from the spot. The samples of the alleged contraband were taken in the presence of the applicants and independent witnesses. The samples taken from the alleged contraband were timely sent for chemical analysis and the report dated 31.5.2019, which is on record, has confirmed the contraband to be 'Ganja'. 11. So far as the recovery made from the conscious possession of the accused, learned counsel for the DRI has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow vs. Md. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100 , wherein the matter of conscious possession of the contraband was decided on the basis of accused being traveling in the vehicle all the way from Nagaland to Uttar Pradesh and there was huge quantity of contraband found in the vehicle which was found sealed in it. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "19. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is 'reasonable ground to believe' that the person is not guilty of the offence. Interpreting the standard of 'reasonable grounds to believe', a two-judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari (supra), held that: 7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is "reasonable grounds". The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the Accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the Accused is not guilty of the offence charged. 8. The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word "reasonable". 7. ... In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2258 states that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy. (See Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar [MANU/SC/0013/1987 : (1987) 4 SCC 497 ] (SCC p. 504, para 7) and Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. [MANU/SC/0203/1989 : (1989) 1 SCC 532 ] [...] 10. The word "reasonable" signifies "in accordance with reason". In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd. [MANU/SC/0459/2003 : (2003) 6 SCC 315 ] 11. The court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the Accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. (emphasis supplied) 20. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High Court and this Court are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed. 25. We shall deal with each of these circumstances in turn. The respondent has been accused of an offence under Section 8 of the NDPS Act, which is punishable under Sections 21, 27-A, 29, 60(3) of the said Act. Section 8 of the Act prohibits a person from possessing any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The concept of possession recurs in Sections 20 to 22, which provide for punishment for offences under the Act. Section 8 of the Act prohibits a person from possessing any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The concept of possession recurs in Sections 20 to 22, which provide for punishment for offences under the Act. In [Madan Lal v. State of H.P., (2003) 7 SCC 465 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1664] this Court held that : "19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle and as noted by the trial court they were known to each other and it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle. 20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act which relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be a conscious possession. 21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with the requisite mental element i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession, Section 20 is not attracted. 22. The expression "possession" is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in [Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038] to work out a completely logical and precise definition of "possession" uniform[ly] applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes. 23. The word "conscious" means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. *** 26. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles." 28. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles." 28. As regards the finding of the High Court regarding absence of recovery of the contraband from the possession of the respondent, we note that in [Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831], a two-Judge Bench of this Court cancelled the bail of an accused and reversed the finding of the High Court, which had held that as the contraband (heroin) was recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck, no contraband was found in the "possession" of the accused. The Court observed that merely making a finding on the possession of the contraband did not fulfil the parameters of Section 37(1) (b) and there was non-application of mind by the High Court." 12. Learned counsel for the DRI has also placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Samujh and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 429 . The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "6. The aforesaid section is incorporated to achieve the object as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Bill No. 125 of 1988 thus: "Even though the major offences are non-bailable by virtue of the level of punishments, on technical grounds, drug offenders were being released on bail. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the need to amend the law to further strengthen it, has been felt." (emphasis supplied) 7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the need to amend the law to further strengthen it, has been felt." (emphasis supplied) 7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne 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 in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa [ (1990) 1 SCC 95 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) "24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine." 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-8-1998 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, releasing Respondent 1 Ram Samujh is quashed and set aside. Respondent 1 is directed to surrender." 13. Learned counsel for the DRI has next relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. Rajesh and Others, AIR (2020) SC 721. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "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 CrPC, 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. 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 CrPC, 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." CONCLUSION 14. The recovered contraband is heavy in quantity and was in the conscious possession of the applicant. All the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been complied with. It is also quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. A ratio decidendi of the judgement of the Apex Court decided in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi and another, 2018 (12) SCC 129 is very much applicable to the present case, wherein it has been opined that in serious crimes, the mere fact that the accused is in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration to release the accused on bail. Further, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the allegation of false implication of the applicants or as to what animosity the personnel of the department had with them. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence, recovery of heavy contraband, complicity of accused, their criminal antecedents as well as the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. 16. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicant are rejected. 17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. 18. 16. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicant are rejected. 17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. 18. However, it is directed that every endeavor shall be made by the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, if there is no other legal impediment, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.