JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Digvijai Nath Duey, learned counsel for Union of India and Sri Parmanand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. 2. Heard the present bail cancellation application, under section 439(2) Cr.P.C., moved for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party Firoz, vide order dated 04.08.2021, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, NDPS Act, Court No.7, Lucknow, in Case Crime No.12 of 2019, under sections 8/20, N.D.P.S. Act, DRI, Lucknow (Firoz Vs. State of U.P.). 3. It is submitted that DRI caught red-handed the accused persons namely Yasin son of Tahir(Truck owner and Driver) alongwith co-accused namely Salauddin and Salim, while transporting/smuggling of NDPS goods i.e. 1083.460Kgs of Ganja concealed in specifically built cavity in the Truck No.U.P.-78 CN 1881 in contravention of section 8 and section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Accused Yasin in his statement stated dated 31.07.2019 tendered in his statement under section 67 N.D.P.S. Act, stated that he reached Vijayanagaram alongwith Firoz (accused) on 26.07.2019, thereafter he and Firoz went to Salur where Firoz got loaded 264 packets of Ganja in his truck on 28.07.2019. He alongwith Firoz started for Hazaribagh. After covering a distance of around 40 Kms., he left the vehicle. Firoz handed over Rs.3,000/- to him, hence, Firoz was actively involved in the smuggling of Ganja and was tracking the said truck constantly. After his arrest Firoz tendered his statement on 20.11.2019 and accepted the facts as levelled by the co-accused Yasin. As per the CDR of Mobile No.9917019980 used by the Firoz, the location of Firoz was in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, which further corroborates the case of prosecution. Large quantity of Ganja is recovered from co-accused of which Firoz was of conscious and active involvement of smuggling of the said Ganja. The first bail application of Firoz dated 23.11.2019 was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Lucknow on 10.12.2019 and thereafter he moved Bail Application No.721 of 2020 before Hon’ble High Court on 20.01.2020, which was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2020, by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. After rejecting the aforesaid bail application by the High Court, the accused Firoz filed Second Bail Application No.6131 of 2020 (Firoz Vs. State of U.P.), before the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Court No.7, Lucknow, which was again rejected by order dated 25.11.2020, in want of no fresh ground. After rejecting the aforesaid bail application by the High Court, the accused Firoz filed Second Bail Application No.6131 of 2020 (Firoz Vs. State of U.P.), before the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Court No.7, Lucknow, which was again rejected by order dated 25.11.2020, in want of no fresh ground. Firoz filed Second Bail Application No.5594 of 2021 (Firoz Vs. State of U.P.) before the Hon’ble High Court, concealing the fact that vide Bail Application No.6131 of 2020 he again approached the Sessions Court and the same was rejected vider order dated 25.11.2020. In the aforesaid Bail Application No.5594 of 2021, the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the department and the bail application is still pending before Hon’ble High Court. During the pendency of aforesaid Bail Application No.5594 of 2021, before the Hon’ble High Court, accused Firoz again filed Bail Application No.3651 of 2021 in the court of Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Court No.7, Lucknow, concealing the fact that the Bail Application No.5594 of 2021, is already pending before the Hon’ble High Court. 5. Learned counsel for prosecution strongly opposed the bail application in the trial court, but Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Court No.7, Lucknow, passed the order dated 04.08.2021, whereby the Bail Application No.3651 of 2021 was allowed in illegal and arbitrary manner. After getting the bail order applicant moved an application for withdrawal of the Bail Application No.5594 of 2021, without disclosing the reason for withdrawal of the bail application, concealing the fact that he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 04.08.2021. The bail order passed by learned trial court is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the prosecution placed many case law before the trial court which are not discussed in the order. 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 unless mandatory conditions provided in Section 37 are complied with. Learned trial court did not discuss the provision of Section 37 while granting the bail to the accused-opposite party, hence the bail granted by learned trial court is not sustainable. Learned trial court did not discuss the provision of Section 37 while granting the bail to the accused-opposite party, hence the bail granted by learned trial court is not sustainable. The lenient approach taken by the court in deciding the bail application in favour of accused-opposite party is clear from the fact that accused is not a first time offender and the nature and manner of crime committed by the accused is not pardonable, hence the bail order dated 04.08.2021 is liable to be cancelled in the injurest of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the DRI stating that the bail is rule and rejection is exception. He has already been granted bail by the competent court. The scheme of cancellataion of bail is based on different grounds, as from the grounds of granting the bail. Hence it is prayed to reject the bail cancellation application of NCB. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Perused the order annexed with the file passed on the second bail application of the present accused-opposite party No.6131 of 2020 which is rejected by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Lucknow on 25.11.2020 and it is mentioned in the order that first bail application of the present accused-opposite party was rejected on 10.12.2019. The bail application was rejected on the ground that no fresh ground is shown in the second bail application. First bail application was rejected on merit. Present applicant moved the third bail application in the court of special judge NDPS Act. In this bail application learned Special Judge did not considered the merits of the case, he neither considered the history of accused nor the recovery of huge quantity of Ganja from co-accused and the role of present accused in commission of crime. This bail is granted merely on the ground that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the order on Bail Application No.721 of 2020 (Firoz Vs. Union of India) that if the trial does not conclude within six months, the present accused shall be granted bail and the co-accused has already been granted bail. This bail is granted merely on the ground that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the order on Bail Application No.721 of 2020 (Firoz Vs. Union of India) that if the trial does not conclude within six months, the present accused shall be granted bail and the co-accused has already been granted bail. It is also pertinent to mention here that the concerned court was informed by the department that second bail application of present accused is pending in Hon’ble High Court, yet learned trial court did not pay any heed to the fact that second bail application was pending and the order in the second bail application may deffer from the order passed by learned trial court. Learned trial court did not mentioned, how many witnesses have been recorded in the case and what is the status of trial. 9. Learned trial court did not consider the provisions of law. Section 37 of NDPS Act read as:- (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (iii) learned trial court did not record the satisfaction to the effect that if the accused is released on bail he will not commit any offence. 10. The provisions of section 37 are corporated in the Act to prevent the menace in the society, as the illegal trafficking of such drugs and substance have laid the drugs and hit among recisable section of the public, particularly the adolscents and students of both sex. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicte the consumption of illegal drugs, the deterrent provisions must be used. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Ors.’ 1999 (9) SCC 429 and ‘Union of India v. Rattan Malik @ Habul’ (2009), ‘Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesri, 2008 CRI. L.J. 335, has repeatedly held that the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both the conditions have to be satisfied. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. The learned trial court did not recorded the satisfaction on both of the points. 11. Both the conditions have to be satisfied. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. The learned trial court did not recorded the satisfaction on both of the points. 11. It was also brought to the notice of the trial court that second bail application of accused applicant was already filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, but presiding officer of special court NDPS did not consider the point that bail application is pending in the High Court and two of the bail applications have already been rejected by Special Judge, NDPS Court prior to this application and once by High Court. It is also evident from the complaint of DRI that accused was constently in connection with the co-accused Salauddin, Salim, Yasin and others from 08.07.2019 to 22.07.2019 at several times. 12. Thus, the bail order passed by learned trial court is illegal, improper and liable to be set-aside. 13. The order of trial court dated 04.08.2021 is hereby rejected and the bail cancellation application is allowed. 14. The accused applicant is directed to surrender before the court concerned. 15. The trial court shall take him into custody and proceed with the trial of the case.