ORDER : 1. The present successive application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection NDPS File No.NCB /AZU/CR-07/2017 for offence under Section 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 25 read with Section 29, 32B (E&F) and Section 60 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. It is submitted that the applicant is a young man aged 24 years and is in jail since 03.08.2017. 2.1 It is submitted that the applicant is booked as accused only on the basis of suspicion and reckless allegations. It is submitted that the applicant has no connection with the narcotic substance. It is submitted that the applicant was not employed as a crew member and was not found in ship. It is submitted that there is not an iota of material to indicate that the applicant was aware about any conspiracy of other accused persons about drug in question. 2.2 It is submitted that the applicant is not found in conscious possession of the contraband and has been charge sheeted on the basis of Section 29 of the NDPS Act which is with regard to punishment for abatement and criminal conspiracy. 2.3 It is submitted that trial is also not substantially progressed since framing of charges and no prosecution witnesses are examined so far. It is submitted that the applicant has no antecedents. 2.4 It is submitted that co-accused Sujit Tiwari is granted bail by the Apex Court by order dated 28.01.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.1897 of 2019 and Suleman Sidhdique Bhadela and Saud Aslam Patel are granted bail by this Court by order dated 28.02.2019 in Criminal Misc.Application No.18195 of 2018. It is submitted that case of the present applicant is on higher pedestal than these co-accused who are granted regular bail. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Department and learned APP for the respondent-State submitted have opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 3.1 It is submitted that the applicant is charged for dealing in commercial quantity of narcotic substance. It is submitted that earlier bail application of the applicant was not entertained and permitted to be withdrawn and since then there is no change in circumstances. 3.1 It is submitted that the applicant is charged for dealing in commercial quantity of narcotic substance. It is submitted that earlier bail application of the applicant was not entertained and permitted to be withdrawn and since then there is no change in circumstances. It is submitted that the applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused who are enlarged on regular bail as their roles are quite different than the role played by the applicant herein. 4. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears the present application is filed in view of the liberty reserved under order dated 11.02.2021 in Criminal Misc.Application No.18773 of 2020, whereby applicant was permitted to withdraw the application with a liberty to file the same again if the trial does not progress satisfactorily within a period of one year. 5. It appears that the offence has taken place, where the ship had sailed from Porbandar harbour at 1130 hrs on 28th July 2017 based on intelligence input for interception of suspicious vessel carrying Narcotics. At about 1725 hrs on 28th July 2017, the ship was directed by Coast Guard Regional Headquarters (North West) to proceed for interception of suspicious vessel MV Hennry. The suspicion had arose out of intelligence inputs from Intelligence Agencies shared with Coast Guard. The ship shaped course in direction 165 at the speed of 15 knots (28 kmph) towards datum and intercepted the suspicious vessel in position 20 58.19 N 069 13.47 E (206 degrees from Porbandar Lt at a distance of 46 nautical miles /85 km) by 0030 hrs in wee hours of 29th July 2017. The vessel had its nevigational lights switched on and was not transmitting on Automatic Identification System (AIS). The ship shadowed her till morning hours by maintaining her in radar contact. At 1235 hrs on 29th July 2017, the ship lowered Gemini boat in position 20 40.35 N 070 16.85 E (193 degrees from Veraval Lt at distance of 14 nautical miles /26 kms) and boarding party embarked onboard MV Hennry. The ship shadowed her till morning hours by maintaining her in radar contact. At 1235 hrs on 29th July 2017, the ship lowered Gemini boat in position 20 40.35 N 070 16.85 E (193 degrees from Veraval Lt at distance of 14 nautical miles /26 kms) and boarding party embarked onboard MV Hennry. The boarding party obtained following details from Master of MV Hennry:- (i) Name of vessel-MV Hennry (ii) Flag of the vessel-Panama (iii) International Maritime Organization NO.(IMO)-8119766 (iv) Maritime Mobile Service Identification No. (MMSI)-370938000 (v) Last Port of Call-Abu Dhabi (no documents provided) (vi) Next Port of Call-Bhavnagar (no documents provided) (vii) Master Name-Mr.Suprit Tiwari (viii) No. of Crew-08 (Including Master-All Indian Nationals) (ix) Cargo-Nil 6. The investigation by the ship’s boarding party was undertaken and it was observed that the master and crew was not in possession of any licence, permit and documents pertaining to departure from last port of call i.e. Abu Dhahi, U.A.E. and entry in next port of call i.e. Bhavnagar for scrap as claimed by Master. The master and the crew were interrogated and search for suspected items was pursued by the boarding party. However, the master denied presence of any contraband substances onboard. Hence, based on the INT input, inconclusive statement of master, non-availability of documents and inclement sea conditions, and the vessel headed for Porbandar for substantial Investigation /search. The investigation and search by the boarding party continued during the passage to Porbandar. The vessel in company of ship entered Porbandar on 30th July 2017. On arrival at Porbandar inner harbour, the master of the vessel was isolated and quizzed separately by the Coast Guard investigation team. The master on interrogation surrendered and confessed to availability of Narcotics onboard. The master physically identified the locations where the narcotics was stored. The locations were thereafter rummaged (Railing were broken and tanks were emptied) by Coast Guard personnel and 1526 packets of approx 1445 kgs of narcotics was recovered from (i) two cavities modified in the two tanks on both sides at stern of the vessel and (ii) bollards and railings on both sides of weather deck. The cavities and railings were specifically fabricated for concealing narcotics. The narcotic was packed and sealed into water proof bricks. The packets were tied with ropes and a chain was formulated for easy stowing and quick recovery. The packets were then concealed into railings and cavities. The cavities and railings were specifically fabricated for concealing narcotics. The narcotic was packed and sealed into water proof bricks. The packets were tied with ropes and a chain was formulated for easy stowing and quick recovery. The packets were then concealed into railings and cavities. The end of the railings were welded with top lid metal plates and were sealed. The structure was thereafter painted for camouflaging. Few samples from recovered narcotics were tested onboard with the help of Narcotics Detection Kit and the test results were positive for Heroin, a narcotic substance. 7. It also appears that the applicant was present in the vessel in question from which commercial quantity of narcotic drug was seized. Moreover, the present applicant has voluntarily admitted in his statement under Section 67 that he was constant touch with other co-accused persons, who were in the process of selling narcotic drug (Heroin). The CDRs also reveal the fact about the present applicant being in constant touch with other co-accused persons, the details of which are as under:- Sr. No. Mobile No. Used by CRD analysis report 1. +91-9897215944 Vishal Spoken to 9768437860 (Irfan) and 971569633590 (Suprit-2). ILD calls to 00989018677370 (Irfan), 0096895262145 (Dubai). Number active up to 18.07.2017 (Vishal in statement said mobile lost) 2. +91-9789435606 Vishal The SDR of number is Vijay, who is friend of Vishal. Vishal in his statements said that his mobile got list therefore he started using Vijay’s number. Actual user of this number w.e.f. 18.07.2017 is Vishal. Vijay also confirmed this. Spoke to 7666612876 (Suleman-1), 008821621280227 (Suprit-1), 9804412393 (Sujit), 9768437860 (Irfan), 8097199304 (Saud-1). Spoken to 9768437860 (Irfan) and 971569633590 (Suprit-2). ILD calls to 00989018677370 (Irfan), 0096895262145 (Dubai). Number active up to 18.07.2017 (Vishal in statement said mobile lost) 7.1 The time-line of call details is as under:- Sr. No. Date Event 1. 06.07.2017 Suprit called to Vishal 2. 06.07.2017 Vishal immediately called to Irfan 3. 06.07.2017 Irfan spoke to Suprit 4. 09.07.2017 Irfan called to Suleman 5. 16.07.2017 Irfan called to Saud 6. 16.07.2017 Sujit spoke with Vishal on 16.07.2017 on instructions of Suprit 7. 17.07.2017 Sujit spoke with Irfan on instructions of Suprit on 17.07.2017 8. 18.07.2017 As Vishal lost mobile on 18.07.2017, he borrowed another mobile belonging to his friend Vijay. He spoke to Suleman, Sujit and Irfan 8. 09.07.2017 Irfan called to Suleman 5. 16.07.2017 Irfan called to Saud 6. 16.07.2017 Sujit spoke with Vishal on 16.07.2017 on instructions of Suprit 7. 17.07.2017 Sujit spoke with Irfan on instructions of Suprit on 17.07.2017 8. 18.07.2017 As Vishal lost mobile on 18.07.2017, he borrowed another mobile belonging to his friend Vijay. He spoke to Suleman, Sujit and Irfan 8. Additional documents in the form of forensic details of mobile are also submitted to establish case against the applicant. Considering these details, it is evident that the present applicant was having knowledge, and was also involved in conspiracy with other co-accused and was talking about taking delivery of consignment and loading of consignment. The evidence collected corroborates the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act and it is clearly coming out that the applicant was involved in the offence. 9. Insofar as co-accused Suleman Sidhdique Bhadela and Saud Aslam Patel, who are granted regular bail by this Court, are concerned, their role is quite different than the present applicant. In fact, those co-accused had made attempts to inform the authorities about arrival of vessel containing the contraband. The role is other co-accused-Sujit Tiwari is also quite different than the role of the present applicant as in his case, except of few WhatsApp messages, there is very little evidence against him and he might not be aware about the entire conspiracy. 10. The quantity involved of narcotic is 1445 kgs., which is a huge commercial quantity, thereby attracting rigours of Section 37 of the Act. From the facts of this case, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant is not involved in any way with the offence. 11. Moreover, it also appears that due to filing of discharge applications by some of the accused persons, the trial could not progress as was expected. 12. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal in Criminal Appeal No.1001-1002 of 2022 dated 19.07.2022, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- “16. 12. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal in Criminal Appeal No.1001-1002 of 2022 dated 19.07.2022, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- “16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellant- NCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh (supra), wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However, this was not the only material that the appellant- NCB had relied on to oppose the bail application filed by the respondent. The appellant-NCB had specifically stated that it was the disclosures made by the respondent that had led the NCB team to arrive at and raid the godown of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups. Counsel for the appellant-NCB had also pointed out that it was the respondent who had disclosed the address and location of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein showed that they were in touch with each other. 17. Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act. We are not persuaded by the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage.” 13. It would be appropriate to give due regards to the submissions made by the learned APP bringing of notice of the Court the grim situation that is prevailing, especially in the State of Gujarat where offences under the provision of NDPS Act dealing with the drugs like 'Ganja', Charas', 'Mephadrone' and 'Amphetamine' are on huge increase and the action is taken by the Government Agency to deter the use from indulging into the activities related to drugs which include the drug dealing, drug peddling and drug consuming. 14. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant. The application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.