JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application for bail. The alleged offence is under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused is in custody for around five months. The quantity involved is commercial. 2. Charge sheet has been submitted; Charge is expected to be framed today. 3. Mr. Kabir, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argues that since there was no recovery of contraband material from the accused, he should be released on bail. Mr. Kabir relies on the decisions in the case of State vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and others with connected matters reported in (2022) 12 SCC 633 , CRM(DB)/14/2023 (Shri Abdul Mazid vs. The State) and CRM(NDPS)/6/2023 (Shri Rajinder Singh vs. The State). 4. The first is a Supreme Court decision which upheld grant of bail to an accused from whom no recovery of contraband substance had been made. In the second a division bench decision of our Court the contraband seized was less than the commercial quantity. 5. In the third, also a division bench decision of our Court, there was no direct recovery from the accused. 6. On the other hand, Ms. A.S.Zinu, learned advocate for the State submits that the accused is part of a chain involved in the commission of the alleged offence. 7. Two things are most important. 8. The first is that the quantity is commercial. 9. Secondly, there is a specific allegation that the subject quantity was in the possession of the accused from where it was passed to the other accused in the chain. 10. In those circumstances, section 37 of the said Act prevents us from granting bail to the petitioner. However, in the above facts and circumstances, especially that there was no direct recovery from the accused, we direct that the trial be conducted and concluded as expeditiously as possible within four months from date. If the trial is not so concluded, the trial judge shall grant bail to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit and proper. 11. The application for bail is accordingly disposed of.