ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is under arrest for committing the offence under Sections 8/18 & 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) in relation to the FIR No. 528/2011 registered at Police Station Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh has come before this Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking release on bail. 2. The first bail application submitted on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 21.06.2023 while trial against the petitioner was pending at the stage of framing of charges. The petitioner has not produced any document revealing that the charges against him have been framed or the trial has been commenced in relation to him. Therefore, without there being any change of progress of trial, this second bail application has been moved. 3. It is alleged against the petitioner that on 02.09.2011, petitioner along with Nirbhaya Singh and Ravi Kumar was apprehended by the police during a barricading at about 11.00 p.m. near Jaliya Check-post in the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali-Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh. On search of a car being driven by the petitioner, total 68.500 Kgs. of opium and 200 gms. of smack was recovered from the car. 4. Shri Vikas Balia, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and allegations so leveled by the police against the petitioner are baseless since petitioner was just a driver of the vehicle and had no knowledge of any contraband drug being hidden in the vehicle involved. He further contended that the samples for chemical analysis from the seized contraband drug were taken at the spot in the absence of a Magistrate in derogation of the provisions of Section 52A of the Act and such irregularities malign the entire proceedings. In support of such arguments reliance has been placed upon judgment pronounced in the case of Union of India vs. Mohan Lal, 2016 (3) SCC 379 . 5. In support of such arguments reliance has been placed upon judgment pronounced in the case of Union of India vs. Mohan Lal, 2016 (3) SCC 379 . 5. It is next contended that the procedure that was followed by the Seizure Officer at the time of search and seizure is also contrary to Section 50 of the Act since a joint notice under Section 50 of the Act came to be issued to three accused and the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 345 . 6. It is further argued that there was delay in sending the samples of alleged contraband to the FSL and after delay of more than 72 hours, samples were send, whereas as per Clause 13 of Standing Order No. 01/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the samples were required to be sent to FSL for testing within 72 hours of seizure to maintain its reliability, therefore, the possibility of tempering with the samples cannot be ruled out. Concluding the submissions, he asserted that petitioner may be released on bail. Reliance was also placed on the following judgments in support of his arguments: (i) Simranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2023 Live Law (SC) 570 decided on 09.05.2023 (ii) Ladhu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Crl. M.B. No. 8738/2023 decided on 02.11.2023 (iii) Kailash Siyak vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Crl. M.B. No. 2255/2018 decided on 25.04.2018 7. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the procedure prescribed under Section 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act were adhered to; that the recovery of contraband was effected from a vehicle in transit and thus, provisions of Section 50 of the Act would have no application because it is not a case involving recovery of contraband in a personal search. 8. It is further argued that petitioner is involved in a drug peddling and contraband drug of huge commercial quantity was recovered from him, therefore, the Bar as contained in Section 37 of the Act is attracted. 9. It is further contended that the petitioner is habitual offender and he is involved in four more cases of drug peddling since 2017, therefore, given his past conduct, he is likely to repeat the same offence. 9. It is further contended that the petitioner is habitual offender and he is involved in four more cases of drug peddling since 2017, therefore, given his past conduct, he is likely to repeat the same offence. He would contend that the points raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are in respect of factual issues which cannot be addressed at this stage and ought to be determined only after trial; that before commencement of the trial in the present case, the petitioner absconded by misusing the benefit of interim bail extended to him on 13.03.2012 and was arrested again on 16.11.2022 i.e. after more than 10 years which has caused drastic delay in the commencement of the trial against him, therefore, if the petitioner is now released on bail, he may again abscond and may not be available for the trial. According to him, no case has been made out for the petitioner to be released on bail. Looking to the past conduct of the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor insisted that the bail may be rejected. In rebuttal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is already on bail in respect of the cases registered against him. 10. This Court has carefully perused the record as well as considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. Firstly, I would like to advert to the mandatory provisions of bail postulated under Section 37 of the Act which reads as below: 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. (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 that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (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 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. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has, on more than one occasions, considered that when commercial quantity of contraband is involved, the powers under Section 37 of the Act are not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also subject to the limitations placed by Section 37 of the Act which commences with a non-obstante clause. 13. Before granting bail to an accused arrested in connection with a recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drug, the Court has to record the findings mandated by Section 37 of the Act which is sine qua non for grant of bail. Failure to do so would violate the mandatory requirement of the statute and thereby we vitiate the bail order. 14. From the facts of the present case, it transpires that the petitioner in the present case is one, who fled away for more than 10 years after being granted interim bail and during this period of absconding, he committed four more cases under the NDPS Act. Consequently, he not only misused the benefit of interim bail granted in the case but also flouted the bail obtained in other cases under the NDPS Act, engaging himself in a series of drug peddling crimes. 15. A perusal of the record indicates that petitioner is addicted to crime under the NDPS Act by habit or by disposition formed by repetitive of crimes. 15. A perusal of the record indicates that petitioner is addicted to crime under the NDPS Act by habit or by disposition formed by repetitive of crimes. The present application seeking bail in the aforesaid F.I.R. is not maintainable because in view of the fact that during the period of abscond in the present trial, the petitioner has been booked in four more cases of drug peddling, therefore, no satisfaction as required under Section 37(1)(ii) can be arrived at about the petitioner for not committing the same offence while on bail as prayed for; petitioner has not maintained good conduct while on bail, therefore, it can be safely presumed that the petitioner is a habitual offender having scant respect for the law. 16. The bail under the NDPS Act can only be granted, if the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner will not indulge in the same activities again, if enlarged on bail, but the conduct of the petitioner prima facie proves that if he is granted the concession of the bail, he will again indulge in the unlawful activities as earlier. 17. Though, the offenders need to be given another chance to come in the main society and live normal life but where the offender is continuing to indulge in the same activities despite given a chance, grant of repeated chances to the offender is quite dangerous to the society and this fact cannot be ignored while considering the plea of an accused, who has committed 4 similar crimes again, while on bail and that too relating to violation of NDPS Act. The Courts cannot ignore the criminal antecedents of the accused. Such accused are not entitled to bail even on parity. In case of release of petitioner on bail at this stage, it may offer the petitioner an opportunity to abscond again from the course of justice. That being so, no ground is made out to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. The antecedents, gravity, nature of the offence, the impact on social fabric and continuous involvement in criminal activities while on bail would lead to the satisfaction that the accused does not deserve bail. The present bail application seeking concession of bail is grossly misconceived both in law as well as on the facts as such which deserves outright dismissal. 19. The antecedents, gravity, nature of the offence, the impact on social fabric and continuous involvement in criminal activities while on bail would lead to the satisfaction that the accused does not deserve bail. The present bail application seeking concession of bail is grossly misconceived both in law as well as on the facts as such which deserves outright dismissal. 19. Having gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the facts of the present case are distinguishable because in the present case, the trial in respect of the petitioner is yet to commence and statement of even a single witness has not been recorded so far. 20. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in many other cases particularly cases under the NDPS Act and a huge commercial quantity of 68.500 kgms of opium and 200 gms of smack was recovered from his possession in the present case, it fully attracts the bar to grant bail as contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. Hence, the present second bail application is hereby dismissed. 21. Since, the present case pertains to the year 2011, therefore, learned trial court is directed to complete the trial of the case within a period of six months from the date of the order. Copy of this order be sent to learned trial court for compliance. 22. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case.