JUDGMENT : MOHAN LAL, J. 1. Under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), the petitioner/accused has claimed bail in File No. 75/Challan titled, Union of India vs. Mohit Gupta and Ors. for commission of offences under Sections 8/20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). It is averred, that the petitioner is a permanent citizen of India and entitled to protection of his fundamental, statutory and other legal rights in force in Union Territory of J&K petitioner is seeking regular bail in the aforesaid challan/complaint pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu which rejected the bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2022; petitioner was arrested by the officers of the respondent-NCB on the intervening night of 10/11.10.2020 from Mumbai (Maharashtra) on the complaint that a secret information was received by one Sh. Parkash Ram Intelligence Officer of respondent department from the reliable sources on 15.09.2020 at 17.00 hours that two persons namely (i) Sh. Mohit Gupta S/o Sh. Subash Chand Gupta R/o Rohini Delhi, (ii) Sh. Amit Gambhir S/o Sh. Narayan Gambhir R/o Rambagh Delhi and one lady namely Soniya D/o Sh. Roshi R/o Karol Bagh Delhi were carrying narcotic drugs (charas) concealed in a vehicle XUV 500 (Mahindra) Car bearing No. UP14CP-0029 which was coming from Kashmir Valley to Jammu via Ban Toll Plaza Nagrota, the said information was reduced in writing and placed before the Superintendent NCB Jammu who issued the order dated 15.09.2020 for detailment of NCB team to carry out the operation in the area of Ban Toll Plaza Jammu, the NCB team reached Ban Toll Plaza Nagrota and at about 21.30 hours, the above mentioned XUV Mahindra Car was stopped, the vehicle was search and during search, 55 packet wrapped with brown colour tap was recovered from the back side of all the seats of the said car, which were weighed and found having total weight of 56.700 kg. including the packing material and, accordingly, Sh. Mohit Gupta, Sh. Amit Gambhir and Ms. Soniya were taken into custody; the confessional statements of Sh. Mohit Gupta, Sh. Amit Gambhir and Ms. including the packing material and, accordingly, Sh. Mohit Gupta, Sh. Amit Gambhir and Ms. Soniya were taken into custody; the confessional statements of Sh. Mohit Gupta, Sh. Amit Gambhir and Ms. Soniya were recorded on 16.09.2020 under Section 67 of the Act, wherein they disclosed that the alleged drug was to be delivered to the petitioner/accused Mumbai and accordingly, during investigation and follow up action, Sh. Himant Kukreti Intelligence Officer NCB Jammu Zone Unit proceeded from J&K and arrested the petitioner/accused, who was produced before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 8th Court Esplanade Mumbai on 12.10.2020 and transit remand was obtained, whereby the petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Jammu and sent to judicial remand. It is further averred, that accused 1 to 3 were arrested at Ban Toll Plaza on 15.09.2020 and narcotic drug was found in their vehicle, the petitioner/accused was not accompanying the said accused persons, but was arrested from Mumbai from his house, the said confessional statements of accused 1 to 3 which have involved the petitioner are not admissible in evidence, as the same were not voluntarily, there is sufficient material on record which makes out a prima-facie ground to presume that the petitioner has been framed in the case, as no recovery has been effected from him the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for grant of bail, but the trial Court has not considered the facts of the case and legal position and has dismissed the bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2022. 2. Sh. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI though not filed response/objections, but has vehemently opposed the bail on the grounds, that huge commercial quantity of contraband charas weighing 56.700 kg has been recovered from the conscious possession of accused 1, 2 & 3 namely Mohit Gupta, Amit Gambhir & Ms. Sonya on 15.09.2020 concealed by them in a vehicle XUV-500 Mahindra Car bearing No. UP14CP-0029 coming from Kashmir to Jammu and intercepted by NCB team at Ban Toll Plaza Nagrota, and the said consignment of contraband was to be delivered/handed over to the petitioner/accused as disclosed by accused 1, 2 & 3 in their confessional statements recorded on 16.09.2020 u/s 67 of the Act by NCB officials. It is argued, that the liberty of an individual is subject to reasonable exceptions, in the case in hand, the petitioner/accused is prima-facie indicted for offence of conspiracy under section 29 of the Act in addition to other co-accused persons and the said commercial quantity of the contraband was to be delivered to the petitioner/accused, who does not deserve any leniency of bail, keeping in view the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner/accused in the case in hand, and in view of the bar created under section 37 of the Act, no bail can be granted and even at this stage, no finding can be rendered that the petitioner/accused is not guilty of offence and is not likely to commit any offence in future. To support his arguments, learned DSGI for NCB has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in (i) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1001-1002 of 2022 and Arising Out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6128-6129 of 2021, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal and (ii) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1841-1842 of 2022 and Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5505-5506 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022, Union of India (NCB) vs. Khalil Uddin. 3. Sh. M.A. Bhat Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has sought petitioner's release on bail by strenuously projecting arguments, that the commercial quantity of charas weighing 56.700 kg has been recovered from the possession of the accused persons namely, Mohit Gupta, Amit Gambhir and Ms. Soniya, nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused who has been arrested from Mumbai only on the confessional statements made by the aforesaid accused persons u/s 67 of NDPS Act which are inadmissible in evidence in view of the ratio of the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1 and (ii) State by (NCB) Bengaluru & Ors. vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022 (2) JKJ 217 [SC] Learned counsel has further argued, that except for the voluntarily statements of A-1, A-2 & A-3 recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act which will remain inadmissible in trial, there is prima-facie no substantial material/evidence available with the prosecution at the time of arrest of petitioner/accused to connect him with the crime of indulging in drug trafficking, all the recoveries of contraband charas have been effected from the co-accused, rigor of section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to the case of petitioner, hence, petitioner/accused deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned DSGI for the respondent. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the material aspects involved in the case and have gone through the ratios of judgments relied by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Hon'ble Apex Court in [3]Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ 2021 (4) SCC 1 ] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused while discussing and appreciating the scope of statement of an accused recorded under section 67 of the Act has held that the confessional statement made by the co-accused are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used in trial against other co-accused. In State by (NCB) Bengaluru and Ors. vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr. 2022 (2) JKJ 217 [SC] dated 10.01.2022, Hon'ble Supreme held that the confessional statements of the accused under section 67 of NDPS Act are inadmissible in evidence, however, the CDRs in regard to the complicity of accused would be examined at stage of trial, and if no recovery of the contraband is made from the possession of the accused, bail can be granted to him. 5. Ld. DSGI for respondent has relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1001-1002 of 2022 and Arising Out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6128-29 of 2021, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, (ii) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1841-1842 of 2022 and Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5505-5506 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022, Union of India (NCB) vs. Khalil Uddin. 1001-1002 of 2022 and Arising Out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6128-29 of 2021, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, (ii) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1841-1842 of 2022 and Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5505-5506 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022, Union of India (NCB) vs. Khalil Uddin. In Mohit Aggarwal's case (Supra) the facts are, that co-accused Gaurav Kumar Aggarwal had disclosed in his voluntary statement made u/s 67 of NDPS Act that he knew where the residence and shop of respondent were located, said accused accompanied raiding team to the premises of respondent/accused and proceeded to the godown of one Promod Jaipuriya and conducted a search during which a cashe of drugs viz.; 6, 64,940 tablets of different psychotropic substances including Tramadol, Zolpidem and Alprazolam tablets/capsules weighing around 328.82 kgs, 1400 Pazinc Injections amounting to 1.4 litres, 80 Corex Syrup bottles weighing 8 liters and 9,900 tablets weighing 990 grams were recovered from the premises of the co-accused Manoj Kumar at Ludhiana. Two bail applications of respondent/accused were rejected by Spl. Judge NDPS, but he filed a petition under section 439 of Cr.pc which was allowed by Single Judge of High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case law (Supra) while rejecting and quashing the bail granted by Delhi High Court held, that the disclosures made by respondent/accused had led the NCB team to raid the godown of co-accused Promod Jaipuriya resulting in recovery of large hall of different Psychotropic Substances, CDRs of mobile phones of co-accused including respondent showed that they were in touch with each other and the assumption that nothing was found from the possession of respondent and he is not guilty of offence for which he has been charged would be pre-mature at this stage. Again, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khalil-Uddin case (Supra) [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1841-1842 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5505-5506 of 2022) dated 21.10.2022 relying upon and considering the import and ratio of the judgments rendered in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1 and (NCB) Bengaluru and Ors. vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr. 1841-1842 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5505-5506 of 2022) dated 21.10.2022 relying upon and considering the import and ratio of the judgments rendered in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1 and (NCB) Bengaluru and Ors. vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr. 2022 (2) JKJ 217 [SC] dated 10.01.2022 and while setting aside/quashing the order/judgment passed by Gauhati High Court dated 19.01.2022 granting bail to respondent and other co-accused indicted in crime registered pursuant to NCB crime No. 13/2019 in respect of offences punishable under sections 21(c) read with 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“The NDPS Act” for short) has held, “that though the contraband weighing 13 kg of morphine was found and recovered from a motor vehicle driven by co-accused Mohd. Jakir Hussain, the said contraband was to be handed over to respondent/accused Khalil-Uddin, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage on the strength of statement of Mohd. Nizam-Uddin though retracted later, the matter stands on different footing, in our considered view, in the face of mandate of Sec. 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail, we allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by High Court and direct both the appellants to be taken into custody forthwith”. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Mohit Aggarwal's case” (Supra) decided on 19.07.2022 and “Khalil Uddin's case” (supra) decided on 21.10.2022, law is no longer res-integra that even if no recovery of contraband has been effected from a co-accused but if the consignment of contraband of commercial quantity is to be handed over/delivered to him, the co-accused can be indicted for punishment for commission of offence of abetment or party to criminal conspiracy to commit offence punishable under Section 29 of the Act relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and rigor/mandate of Sec. 37 of the Act is applicable. Ratios of the judgments of “Mohit Aggarwal'“ & “Khalil Uddin's cases” (supra) decided very recently and later in time to “Toofan Singh” & “Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta case” having a binding effect upon all courts of the country are squarely applicable to the case in hand. Ratios of the judgments of “Mohit Aggarwal'“ & “Khalil Uddin's cases” (supra) decided very recently and later in time to “Toofan Singh” & “Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta case” having a binding effect upon all courts of the country are squarely applicable to the case in hand. In the case in hand, as per the prosecution story, 56.700kg of commercial quantity of charas has been recovered on 15.09.2020 at 1700 hours from three (3) co-accused namely, Mohit Gupta, Amit Gambhir & Ms. Soniya carrying the said contraband from Kashmir Valley to Jammu concealed in a vehicle XUV 500 (Mahindra) car bearing No. UP 14CP/0029 at Ban Toll Plaza Nagrota and the consignment as per confessional statements of the aforesaid accused persons recorded on 16-09-2020 u/s 67 of NDPS Act was to be delivered to petitioner/accused at Mumbai. In view of the ratios of judgments of Mohit Aggarwal & Khalil-Uddin cases (Supra), the mandate of Sec. 37 of the Act is attracted. In my opinion, the narrow parameters of bail available u/s 37 of the Act have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that respondent/accused has successfully demonstrates that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of offence alleged against him, for him to be admitted to bail. The length of the period of custody of respondent or the fact that the chargesheet has been filed and trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent/accused u/s 37 of NDPS Act. 6. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the present bail petition being misconceived under law, is disallowed and rejected. 7. Disposed off accordingly.