ORDER : 1. Heard Smt. G. Sangeetha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the Respondent. 2. Contending that he is entitled for bail, the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No.202 of 2022 of Huzurnagar Police Station, is before this Court. 3. Making her submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever and further, the petitioner hails from a poor family and there is no previous crime history against the petitioner and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel also states that the petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2022 and remanded to judicial custody and thus, he is in judicial custody since more than 125 days and therefore, he is entitled for bail. 4. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that huge quantity of 200 Kgs of Ganja was seized from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also stated that hatching a plan, the petitioner committed the offence and he used his close relatives i.e. accused Nos.2 & 3 to escape from police while travelling. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the case is hit by Section 37 of NDPS Act. 5. The version of the prosecuting agency is that Accused No.4 was doing business in transporting and selling Ganja. The petitioner got associated with Accused No.4. Thereafter, they both were involved in selling Ganja. Subsequently, Accused No.4 informed the petitioner to bring two women in his vehicle to avoid police checking while transporting Ganja. On that, the petitioner approached Accused Nos.2 & 3, who are his close relatives and asked them to accompany him. He offered to pay Rs.5,000/- each. They accepted the proposal due to financial problems. On 14.07.2022, the petitioner and Accused No.4 left in their TOYOTA INNOVA vehicle and went to Aurangabad, took accused Nos.2 & 3 and after that, they went to Rajahmundry of Andhra Pradesh State. Accused No.4 dropped the petitioner and Accused Nos.2 & 3 at a Tiffin Centre in Rajahmundry and went somewhere and brought load of Ganja. Later, the petitioner and Accused Nos.2 & 3 boarded the vehicle and started proceeding. Accused No.4 dropped the petitioner and Accused Nos.2 & 3 at a Tiffin Centre in Rajahmundry and went somewhere and brought load of Ganja. Later, the petitioner and Accused Nos.2 & 3 boarded the vehicle and started proceeding. They informed Accused Nos.2 & 3 to state to police if the vehicle is stopped that accused No.2 is suffering from ill-health and therefore, she is being shifted to hospital for treatment. On 17.07.2022, when they reached Telangana-Andhra Pradesh boarder check-post, the vehicle was stopped. However, Accused No.4, who was driving the vehicle, drove the same at a high speed with an intention to escape. But, they were stopped. Accused No.4 got down from the vehicle and fled away by leaving the vehicle. Police checked the vehicle and found 8 bags of Ganja weighing 200 Kgs in total. 6. Admittedly, the Ganja seized as per the version of the prosecution exceeds commercial quantity. Such being the situation, as per Section 37(2) of NDPS Act, apart from other conditions laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 37 of the NDPS Act should also be taken into consideration. 7. The legal position with regard to grant of bail in NDPS cases is discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and by various High Courts across the country in number of decisions. 8. In this case, the grounds urged are that Accused Nos.2 & 3 were granted bail on this day, that the petitioner is in judicial custody since more than 125 days, that the confessional statement is invalid in the eye of law. 9. To decide all these factors, the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on each of the points requires to be borne in mind. 10. When grant of bail was questioned by the Customs Authorities, where it purportedly recovered huge quantity of Diazepam 5mg tablets from the accused, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 , discussing the limitations for granting bail in NDPS cases, held as under:- “The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 , discussing the limitations for granting bail in NDPS cases, held as under:- “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. In the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act.” 11. Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as follows:- 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. 12. (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. 12. Therefore, when the offences are punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A or where the contraband involve commercial quantity, no person accused of the said offence, can be enlarged on bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity and when the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Thus, on hearing the Public Prosecutor and on being satisfied that the twin conditions are complied, they only bail can be granted. The twin conditions are as under:- Firstly, that the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence and Secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 13. In the case on hand, prima facie material is on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime alleged. 14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner took a plea that length of period of custody has to be taken into consideration, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs. MOHIT AGGARWAL, 2022 Live Law (SC) 613, clearly laid down that the length of the period of custody, filing of charge sheet or commencement of trial, are not the considerations to be taken into account for enlarging the accused on bail where the quantity seized exceeds commercial quantity. 15. The Court at Para 18 of the Judgment, held as follows:- “18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 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 the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not consideration that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” 16. Also stating that the legislative intent has to be borne in mind the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM SAMUJH AND ANR., 1999 Supp(2) SCR 76 held as follows:- “It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered and followed. It should be borne in mind that in murder case, accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable: it causes deleterious effects and 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 NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didien v. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Gua, (1990) 1 SCC 95 as under: “With deep concern, we may point out that the organized 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 proportion 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, the Parliament in the wisdom has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine”, To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, the parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) That he is not likely to commit while on are satisfied.” 17. Though a plea was taken that other accused were granted bail, the same is not a ground as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA VS. RAJESHN ETC, wherein the Court at Para 23 of the Judgment held as follows:- “23. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that in Crime No.14/2018, the bail has been granted to the other accused persons (A-1 to A-4) and no steps have been taken by the prosecution to challenge the grant of post –arrest bail to the other accused persons, is of no consequence for the reason that the consideration prevailed upon the Court to grant bail to the other accused persons will not absolve the act of the accused respondent(A-5) from the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” 18. When the factual circumstances and involvement of some of the accused or one of the accused differs from that of the others in the same case, the analogy applied against the accused to whom bail is granted need not be applied to the other accused against whom different circumstances exist or the allegations are grave in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said ground also cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, ultimately, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be honoured. 19. Resultantly, the Criminal petition is dismissed.