JUDGMENT : RENU AGARWAL, J. 1. Objections to the second bail application filed today is taken on record. 2. The present second application for bail has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2019 under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act Police Station DRI Gomti Nagar District Lucknow. The first application for bail was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2021. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is falsely implicated in the above noted case while he is innocent having no concern with the alleged offence. According to the prosecution case set out in the recovery memo that on 10.05.2019 at about 5 am in Deputy Director of DRA, Lucknow Zone was informed that a mini Truck Tata bearing Registration No. RJ 05 GB 5866 coming from Odisa via Jabalpur, Jhansi Highway, Orai, Kanpur, Lucknow to Agra in which contraband article (Ganja) was loaded. On the said information complainant constituted a team and went for raid, on the way at Shaheedpath Tiraha two persons were collected as independent witnesses and reached near Amausi Airport at about 07:30 am. At about 8:45 am mini truck came from Kanpur side and on confirmation the said truck was stopped. The driver of the truck disclosed his identity as Pappu son of Mangal. The person who was sitting along with the driver disclosed his identity as Sridam Adhikari son of Nagen Adhikari. On checking it was found that three persons namely, Ram Prakash son of Dhuri Singh, Chet Ram alias Ram Veer son of Kalyan Singh and Sujeet Kushwaha son of Bhola Prasad Kushwaha were sitting in the back side of the truck in Dala and they relvealed that contraband article (Ganja) is present in the truck. Thereafter DRI team made search of the accused and took them away to the office of DRI at Gomti Nagar. Co-accused Chet Ram had hired an Innova car bearing Registration No. U.P 80 BY 0701 which was being driven by Hari Singh son of Parsadi. On query it was informed that Chet Ram had hired the said Innova car and travelled from Agra to Mandala, from where he boarded on the said truck. When they stopped the car for filling diesel, three persons hired his car and requested to drop them at Agra. Thereupon Chetram agreed. On query it was informed that Chet Ram had hired the said Innova car and travelled from Agra to Mandala, from where he boarded on the said truck. When they stopped the car for filling diesel, three persons hired his car and requested to drop them at Agra. Thereupon Chetram agreed. When the vehicle reached at Babina toll plaza at about 00:45 and the vehicle was stopped for payment of toll tax his vehicle was stopped by 10 to 12 persons who enquired their names and address and they were taken to Zonal Office DRI. The Innova car was not seized by the DRI. Signatures of applicant and other co-accused and driver of the truck were obtained on the recovery memo. It is also submitted that the team of DRI seized mobile phone Aadhar card, pancard and meager amount from the possession of the accused persons and 122 packets (Ganja) having weight 650.740 Kg kept in secret cavity of truck. The brother of accused applicant under enquiry regarding the actual fact visited Babina toll plaza and obtained CCTV footage recorded between 00:01 to 01:00 am in the night of 9/10.05.2019. 4. It is also submitted that Hari Singh tried to lodged FIR in police Station Fatehpur Sikri but his report was not lodged. He then sent an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police through registered post on 31.05.2019. An application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra on 11.06.2019. The applicant is confined in jail in alleged crime which was not committed by him. Raiding team not complied with with provisions of Sections 50, 41, 42, 43 of the NDPS Act and the statement under Section 67 NDPS Act were forcibly recorded. He had moved an application for appeal under Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned trial court. The incriminating contraband material was not sent for forensic science laboratory in contravention of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 . The applicant is a simple villager residing in ancestral village and if he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. The incriminating contraband material was not sent for forensic science laboratory in contravention of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 . The applicant is a simple villager residing in ancestral village and if he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for DRI moved objection against the second bail application on behalf of the DRI and submitted that in the instant case, the officers of DRI intercepted the truck bearing registration No. RJ 05 GB 5866 travelled by five persons including the present applicant which was driven by Pappu. On search 650.740 kg ganja having value of about Rs. 97,61,100/- was recovered from the especially built cavity in the said truck. From the analysis of call records of cell phone of accused persons it is divulged that the accused persons were in continuous contact with each other. The involvement of the present applicant is confirmed from the recovery memo dated 10.05.2019 and corroborated by the statements of accused record on 10.05.2019 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 6. It is further argued that the fact of hiring Innova car has duly been recorded in the recovery memo. It is also submitted that the allegation that the applicant and other co-accused Hari were compelled to put their signatures on the bottom of blank paper is baseless and refuted by the fact that the applicant and other co-accused recorded their respective statements in their own handwriting. Hari Singh executed an undertaking on 11.05.2019 under his own handwriting that DRI officers returned his innova car bearing No. U.P. 80 BY 0701, Wallet, Mobile phone, and other documents in perfect condition. That the averments made in para-12 of the second bail application are misconceived and accused persons indulged in illicit trafficking of said ganjas and the recovery memo is prepared in presence of independent witness. 7. It is also submitted that as per Section 36-A (4) of NDPS Act 90 days referred in Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. would be read as 180 days for the purpose of NDPS Act for the offence involved. It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory to be followed. 7. It is also submitted that as per Section 36-A (4) of NDPS Act 90 days referred in Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. would be read as 180 days for the purpose of NDPS Act for the offence involved. It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory to be followed. The provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are reproduced below for ready reference: “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 27 A 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 ground for believing that he is not guilty for such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.” 8. Additionally the court must be satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to commit the offence while on bail. 9. It is also submitted that the bail application No. 8627 of 2019 has already been rejected on 22.09.2019 by Hon'ble High Court and the bail application No. 8576 of 2021 filed by Sujeet Kushwaha was rejected on 25.11.2021 by the court of Sessions. All the grounds taken in the present bail applicant has been considered in the order dated 22.09.2019. Therefore, the bail of present applicant is strongly opposed. Lastly, learned counsel for the Union of India has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, 1999 (39) ACC 643 wherein the Court has held thus: “It is to be brone in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered and followed. Lastly, learned counsel for the Union of India has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, 1999 (39) ACC 643 wherein the Court has held thus: “It is to be brone 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 marcotic 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 impacts 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 large stake illegal profit involved.” 10. Now, coming back to the case at hand, the bail of present applicant Sujeet Kushwaha has already been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court along with other accused on 22.09.2021 by a detailed order. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he was not given an opportunity to file written submissions nor was heard at the time of disposal of that application. It is pertinent to mention here that no such contention has been made in the second bail application. However the name of the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Parmanand Gupta is printed in the order dated 22.09.2021. It is not in dispute that the alleged seized contraband having weight of 650.740 Kg which is much more than commercial quantity is recovered from possession of accused. Therefore, the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case which is in addition to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and mandatory in nature. Section 37 of NDPS Act are bound to be satisfied. 12. While deciding the first bail application, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has touched upon the mandatory provisions as well as different case law placed before the Court. Section 37 of NDPS Act are bound to be satisfied. 12. While deciding the first bail application, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has touched upon the mandatory provisions as well as different case law placed before the Court. The case law of Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul, 2009 (1) SCC (Crl) 831, Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 , Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 , State of Kerala vs. Rajesh, AIR 2020 SC 721 , Union of India vs. Prateek Shukla, AIR 2021 SC 1509 , NCB vs. Lakshman Prasad Soni, Criminal Appeal No. 438-440 of 2021 decided by Apex Court on 19.04.2021 are well discussed in the order 22.09.2021. Possession is the core ingredient to be established before the accused is made criminally liable. The expression “possession” has also been dealt with in the order dated 22.09.2021 by this Court. Relying upon Megh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2003 Cri. L.J. 4329, Gunwantlal vs. State of M.P. AIR 1972 SC 1756 and Dehal Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2011 (72) ACC 661. 13. In light of the above mention cases, the Co-ordinate Bench did not find any ground to hold that the accused are not guilty of offence and they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail and the bail application was rejected on merits. 14. Learned counsel for the applicant did not place any new ground in the second bail application except the fact that the accused-applicant is languishing in jail since the last five years. Mere period of incarceration cannot be a ground sufficient to release the accused from whom huge amount of recovery has been made, he was apprehended at spot having conscious possession of recovered ganja. Apart from the period of incarceration no other ground for bail is mentioned in the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, there is no ground to release the accused on bail. 15. The second bail application is accordingly rejected.