ORDER : 1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 297/2021, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 NDPS Act and 3/25 Arms Act. 2. The earlier applications for bail were dismissed vide orders dated 21.4.2022 (Second CRLMB No. 3258/2022 Kishore vs. State) and 10.09.2021 (CRLMB No. 12421/2021 Gopal vs. State). 3. As per prosecution story, SHO Brijendra Singh C.I. PS Kotwali, Nagaur received an information from reliable sources that the present accused-Gopal is going to sell psychotropic/narcotic substance to one of his customer in vehicle (Scorpio) bearing no. RJ-23-UB-3022. On receiving aforesaid information, by following the procedure provided under Section 42(1) and (2) of NDPS Act, SHO, PS Kotwali, Nagaur with his team at about 11:50 P.M. reached to the dhani (group of houses in a village) of the petitioners, where they saw two persons standing. Upon seeing the police team, the accused tried to flee in their white Scorpio. The police team, however, succeeded in nabbing both the persons, who on being interrogated disclosed their names as Gopal and Kishore petitioners herein. As per prosecution case, separate notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served upon both the accused persons. After following the due process, the Scorpio was searched, wherefrom one plastic bag containing white powdery like substance was found which was disclosed to be ‘smack’. During personal search of the present petitioners, a loaded pistol along with four live rounds was found from the pyjama worn by petitioner Gopal. That apart, from the left pocket of his pyjama, two mobile phones and one white plastic bag containing smack were also recovered. The psychotropic substance (smack) weighing 10-10 gms. was also recovered from the physical possession of each of the petitioners Kishore and Gopal, whereas 285 gms. smack was recovered from the vehicle (Scorpio). As per the prosecution, the total smack recovered from Scorpio as well as physical possession of the petitioners was 305 gms. 4. The investigating agency after making thorough investigation filed charge-sheet against both the petitioners before competent criminal court for the offences under Sections 8/21, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act and Section 5/25 of the Arms Act. 5. As per the prosecution, the total smack recovered from Scorpio as well as physical possession of the petitioners was 305 gms. 4. The investigating agency after making thorough investigation filed charge-sheet against both the petitioners before competent criminal court for the offences under Sections 8/21, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act and Section 5/25 of the Arms Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention towards the challan papers, recovery memo and statement of Seizure Officer Brijendra Singh (PW-4), submitted that the entire procedure of search and seizure conducted by the Seizure Officer is in gross violation of Sections 42, 50, 52 and 55 of the NDPS Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention towards the challan papers, recovery memo and statement of Seizure Officer Brijendra Singh (PW-4), submitted that the entire procedure of search and seizure conducted by the Seizure Officer is in gross violation of Sections 42, 50, 52 and 55 of the NDPS Act. To buttress this submission, reliance was placed upon the crossexamination of the Seizure Officer, Brijendra Singh (PW-4), whose testimony is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: ^^;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 01] 02] 03] 04 o 05 bu ikapksa gh isdsV ij Fkkus ykus ds ckn eky[kkuk esa tek djokus ls iwoZ /kkjk 55 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds rgr vkfVZdy iqu% fjlhy djus dh lhy vafdr ugha gS o uk gh phV psik ij fjlhy dh uewuk lhy L;kgh vafdr gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 01] 02] 03] 04 o 5 ij fjlhy dh phV psik Hkh ugha fpidkbZ gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 01 yxk;r 05 dks Fkkus esa tek djokus ls iwoZ èkkjk 55 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV dh dk;Zokgh ds vuqlkj eky[kkuk esa tek ugha djok;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 07 ds eSdsfute dks pSd djus ds fy, Qk;j dj ds ekSds ij pSd ugha fd;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ekSds ij lhy 'kqnk vkfVZdy ij fpidk;h gqbZ phV psik o Fkkuk esa ykdj iqu% fjlhy ds nkSjku rS;kj dh xbZ phV psik dh f}rh; çfr i=koyh esa ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd eqyfteku dks èkkjk 50 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds uksfVl esa 50¼5½ ds rgr eSus lpZ dh dk;Zokgh dh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd /kkjk 50 ¼05½ ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds rgr esjs }kjk fd;s x;s lpZ es èkkjk 50¼6½ ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds rgr uksfVl dh çfr 72 ?kaVs Hkhrj mPp vfèkdkjh dks Hkstuk vkKkid çkoèkku gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd xokg us i=koyh ns[kdj crk;k dh èkkjk 50 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV dk uksfVl mPp vfèkdkfj;ksa dks ugha Hkstk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks fn;s x;s èkkjk 50 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds uksfVl ds FkMZ fodYi dh jktif=r vfèkdkjh ;k eftLVsV ds le{k dksbZ ,slk O;fDr yk;k tkrk gS] ryk'kh ds fy, mfpr vkèkkj ugha ikrk rks ,sls O;fDr dks mUeksfpr dj ldrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd /kkjk 42 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds rgr ryk'kh ls iwoZ QnZ [kkuk ryk'kh ugha cuk;hA ;g lgh gS fd ?kVuk lw;kZLr ds i'pkr o lw;ksZn; ds chp dh FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd çn'kZ ih 01 ds vUnj bZ ls ,Q fgLls esa le; 02 ,Œ,eŒ xyr fy[kk gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd çn'kZ ih 01 ds vks ls ih fgLls esa esjs gLrk{kj 02 ,Œ,eŒ ugha gq;s gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd çn'kZ ih 01 ds , ls ch] lh ls Mh] th ls ,p o vkbZ ls ts] ds ls ,y o ,e ls ,u o rhu txg ,Dl LFkku ij uewuk lhy L;kgh nks ,Œ,eŒ ij ugha dh xbZ gksA vt[kqn dgk dh QnZ dh lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh 02 ,Œ,eŒ ij iqjh gks pwafd FkhA Fkkuk ij igqapus ij fdruk le; yxk vkt ;kn ugha gSaA Fkkus ls ?kVukLFky 05 fdyksehVj nwj gSA ;g lgh gS fd çn'kZ ih 03 o 04 esa xkM+h dh ryk'kh dk dksbZ vadu ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd çn'kZ ih 19 , eky[kkuk jftLVj esa uewuk lhy L;kgh o iqu% fjlhy L;kgh dk i`"Bkadu ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd çdj.k esa tIr vkfVZdy dks eky[kkuk esa tek ds ckn tkap vfèkdkjh }kjk nqckjk osjhfQds'ku fd;k gks ,sl bUækt ugha gSA uksV% yap le; gksus ls bl Lrj ij xokg ds c;ku fjtoZ j[ks x;sA uksV% yap le; ckn xokg ds fjtoZ c;ku iqu% mlh Lrj ij 'kq: fd, x,A ;g lgh gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks fn;s x;s èkkjk 50 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds uksfVl ds FkMZ fodYi dh jktif=r vfèkdkjh ;k eftLVªsV ds le{k dksbZ ,slk O;fDr yk;k tkrk gS] ryk'kh ds fy, mfpr vkèkkj ugha ikrk rks ,sls O;fDr dks mUeksfpr dj ldrk gS] mDr fodYi vfHk;qDr dks ugha fn;kA ;g lgh gS fd çn'kZ ih 3 o 4 esa ^^vfèkdkj** 'kCn dk ç;ksx djrs gq, eqyfte dks muds vfèkdkjksa ls voxr ugha djok;k x;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd èkkjk 52 ukjdksfVDl dkaVksy C;wjks ds LFkkbZ vkns'k la[;k 1@88 ds ckjs esa tkudkjh ugha gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eky[kkuk bapktZ dks Ádj.k ds tCr vkfVZdy lhy'kqnk voLFkk esa tek djokus dh dksbZ QdZ rS;kj dj eky[kkuk bapktZ ds gLrk{kj djok, gksA ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd i=koyh ns[kdj eSa ugha crk ldrkA ;g lgh gS fd çn'kZ ih 10 ij eky[kkuk bapktZ ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd rRle; eky[kkuk bapktZ dks eSa ugha tkurk gksA vt[kqn dgk eky[kkuk bapktZ lksguyky dks eSa ugha tkurk gksA ç'u% i=koyh esa gLrxr çdj.k esa tCr vkfVZdy 'khYM'kqn voLFkk esa ,pŒlhŒ lksguyky eky[kkuk çHkkjh dksrokyh dks lqiqnZ fd;k gks ,slh dksbZ QnZ i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gSA mRrj% ;g dguk xyr gSA ç'u% ekSds ij QnZtCrh dk;Zokgh ds i'pkr vki }kjk dkSu dkSu lh QnkZr rS;kj dh xbZ\ mRrj% ;g dguk xyr gS fd mä QnkZr ds vykok vU; QnkZr i=koyh ij miyCèk ij gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd Q+nZ tCrh çn'kZ ih 1 esa rS;kj gksus ds i'pkr xyr rjhds ls QnZ tCrh ds ckn dh QnksZ dk vadu fd;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSa jktif=r vfèkdkjh ugha gwaA ;g dguk lgh gS fd fQj Hkh ryk'kh esjs }kjk gh yh xbZA ;g lgh gS fd çn'kZ ih 3 o 4 èkkjk 50 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ uksfVl esa esjs }kjk ryk'kh fy, tkus ckcr fodYi ugha fn;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd cjkenxh xkMh o 'kjhj nksuksa ls dh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd igys eqyftekuksa ds dCts ls cjkenxh gqbZ Fkh mlds ckn xkM+h ls cjkenxh gqbZ FkhA ;g lgh gS fd xkM+h ls cjkenxh lacaèk esa èkkjk 50 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ dk vyx ls uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd çn'kZ ih 3 o 4 ds Hkkx th ls ,p ,d gh O;fDr dh dyeh gksA ;g lgh gS fd çn'kZ ih 15 esa ;g mYys[k ugha gS fd eqyfte fd'kksj dqekj ds dCts ,oa ikl esa dksbZ eknd inkFkZ gksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eq[kchj dh lwpuk çn'kZ ih 15 èkkjk 42¼2½ esa xkM+h pykbZeku fLFkfr esa gks] ifjogu fLFkfr esa gks] çogu fLFkfr esa gks dk vadu ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd cjkenxh jkf= ds le; dh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd çn'kZ ih 15 dk bZ ls ,Q fgLlk isu ls fy[kk gqvk gSA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha fd Ld‚fÁ;ksa okgu fdlh dk futh okgu gksA ;g lgh gS fd gLrxr çdj.k esa dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ eSaus fdlh l{ke vfèkdkjh ls lpZ okjaV ugha çkIr fd;k vt[kqn dgk fd le; vHkko o eqyftekuksa dh Qjkjh o eky dh [kqnZ cqnZ djus dk iwjk iwjk vans'kk gksus ds dkj.k okjaV çkIr ugha fd;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus ,slh dksbZ QnZ vyx ls rS;kj ugha fd okjaV çkIr ugha djus ds dkj.kksa dh QnZ rS;kj ugha dhA xokg us i=koyh dk voyksdu dj dgk vyx ls QnZ ugha gSA ysfdu ,QvkbZvkj dh tCrh esa vafdr gSA ;g lgh gS fd ,slh dksbZ QnZ eSaus rS;kj djds mPp vfèkdkjh dks ugha HksthA vt[kqn dgk fd jkstukeps esa vafdr gSA ;g lgh gS fd vly jkstukepk esjs ikl ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus /kkjk 42¼1½ ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds çksohtks dh ikyuk ugha dh gSA ;g lgh gS fd tks cjkenxh eSaus Ld‚fi;ksa xkM+h ls crk;h x;h gS fdlus xkMh esa D;ksa j[kh o dc j[kh bl ckcr eq>s O;fDrxr dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS o u gh ,slh lk{; i=koyh ij gSA ;g lgh gS fd xkM+h dh pkch vyx ls tCr ugha dhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eqyftekuksa dks xkMh esa cSBs gq, dks ncksp fy;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd xkMh ewfoax fLFkfr esa ugha FkhA vkt eq> ;kn ugha fd xkM+h fdl fn'kk esa ewfoax gks jgh FkhA xkM+h ?kj ls fudydj djhc yxHkx 100 ehVj nwjh ij Fkh o fn'kk dk eq>s vkt ;kn ughaA ;g lgh gS fd çn'kZ ih 17 esa xkMh ?kj ls 100 ehVj nwj ewfoax fLFkfr esa gks eSaus tkap vfèkdkjh dks ugha crk;kA nwjh fdrus ehVj dh gks eSaus ugha crk;kA xkM+h pyus dh fLFkfr esa ugha Fkh] ekSds ij gh [kMh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd eqyfteku ds isUV o 'kVZ dks tCr ugha fd;k gksA ;g lgh gS fd eqyfteku ds isUV o 'kVZ fdl jax ds igus gq, Fks vkt eSa ugha crk ldrkA ;g lgh gS fd eqyft;ku xksikyjke o fd'kksj dqekj ds nksuksa dh tsc ls cjkcj 10&10 xzke dh cjkenxh crkbZ gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd cjkenxh cukoVh crk;h gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eqyfteku dks tks fyf[kr èkkjk 50 dk uksfVl fn;k x;k Fkk mDr uksfVl eqyfteku dh tsc ls cjken ugha gqvk gksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eqyfteku ls tks èkkjk 50 dk uksfVl ÁkIr gqvk oks QksYM voLFkk esa Fkk] ftlesa flykoVs iM+h gqbZ FkhaA ;g lgh gS fd flykoVs iMk gqvk uksfVl i=koyh esa i=koyh esa ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ,slk uksfVl eqyfteku dk fn;k gh ugha gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eqyftekuksa ls tks vkfVZdy cjkenxh gqbZ oks LeSd ugha gksA ,Q,l,y fjiksVZ esa cjkenx vkfVZdy gsjksbZu vkbZ gks bl lacaèk esa eSa ugha crk ldrkA vt[kqn dgk fd fjiksVZ ,Q,l,y eSaus ugha ns[khA ;g ckr lgh gS fd gsjksbZu o LeSd nksuksa vyx&vyx eknd inkFkZ gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eqyfte xksiky dh tsc ls xkMh Ld‚fÁ;ks dh pkch cjken ugha gqbZ FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd Ld‚fÁ;ksa xkMh eqyfte fd'kksj dqekj dh ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd tCr'kqnk xkMh u rks fd'kksj dqekj ds dCts dh Fkh o u gh Lo;a xkfyd Fkk o u gh vkj lh gksYMj FkkA vt[kqn dgk fd og Lo;a xkM+h ds vanj cSBk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ nLrkost ugha gS ftlls ;g çekf.kr gks ;g xkMh fd'kksj dqekj dh gksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl çdj.k esa tCr eky eky[kkuk esa tek djokus ls iwoZ U;kf;d eftLVªsV dh mifLFkfr esa dksbZ QksVksxzkQh o fofM;ksxzkQh ugha djokbZ Fkh vkSj uk gh tCr vkfVZdy uewuk lSEiy daVksy lSEiy ,oa eqn~nk eky dh QksVksxzkQh eftLVªsV egksn; ds lkeus djokbZA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dsUæh; ljdkj ds LVsfMax v‚MZj 1@1989 fnukad 13-06-1989 dh ikyuk ugha dh gksA eq>s bl LVsfMax v‚MZj dh tkudkjh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 4] 5] 6 tks U;k;ky; esa is'k gq, gS mu iSdsV ij esjh futh lhy dh fpiM+h ugha FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eqyfteku dks >wBk Qalk;k gksA ;g lgh gS fd eky[kkuk jftLVj esa esjs dksbZ gLrk{kj ugha gS o uk gh uewuk L;kgh lhy dk vadu gS o uk gh eky[kkuk bapktZ dkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd uewuk lhy QnZ eky[kkuk esa tek ugha djokbZA** 6. Learned counsel placed reliance on following orders/judgments of the co-ordinate Benches of this Court granting bail to the accused stating that these orders have been passed in similar set of facts: 1. Poonam vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMB No. 17215/2021) 2. Madan Karir vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMB No. 5628/2022) 3. Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMB No. 17383/2021) 4. Sahil Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMB No. 3938/2021) 7. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court and Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Parmanand and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (1) R. Cr. D. 1 (Raj), State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and Another, 2014 (0) AIR (SCW) 1578 and Sanjeev and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 870/2016. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Kishore) submitted that he was present at the place of the incident by chance without having any prior knowledge about the contraband and he has been falsely roped in the present case. To substantiate the said argument, learned counsel submitted that the secret/reliable information was received by the Police only in connection with petitioner Gopal. Even during investigation, the petitioner has not been found to be connected with the alleged crime. 9. Learned counsel thus implored the Court to accept the bail applications. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that huge psychotropic substance (smack) was recovered not only from the offending vehicle i.e. Scorpio but also 10 gms. smack from the physical possession of each of the present petitioners apart from recovery of a pistol and five live rounds from the physical possession of the petitioner Gopal. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioners are hardened criminals as they are already facing trial in four other cases for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code. 11. Heard. 12. The question before this Court is as to whether at the stage of bail, it would be prudent for this Court to deal with the alleged violations of various provisions of Sections of NDPS Act, particularly when the trial is going on and evidence in the form of various prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses are yet to be recorded. 13. The question before this Court is as to whether at the stage of bail, it would be prudent for this Court to deal with the alleged violations of various provisions of Sections of NDPS Act, particularly when the trial is going on and evidence in the form of various prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses are yet to be recorded. 13. It is evident from the charge sheet that the S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali, Nagaur on 29.07.2021, received an information from reliable source at about 11P.M. regarding commission of offence punishable under NDPS Act. The said information was immediately entered into roznamcha and an information in this regard was also forwarded to the superior officers in a closed envelope through special messenger Constable Om Prakash. It is pertinent to note here that the SHO himself conducted the search, arrested the accused and seized the contraband. He was thus following the mandate of Section 41 of the NDPS Act which deals with the powers of the police officials and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, prima-facie, the actions of the S.H.O. in the present case were not in violation of provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and merely because the information was not forwarded by him to his superior officers within 72 hours after the search, registration of case against the petitioners and conducting investigation pursuant thereto, cannot be said to be held to be illegal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, (2000) 2 SCC 513 observed that the procedure mandated in Section 42(1) and 42(2) does not require literal compliance. In view of aforesaid discussion, the question with regard to violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is one that should be raised during trial. 14. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609 , held that the question whether the requirement of Section 50 of NDPS Act and the procedure prescribed therein had been followed or not, is a matter of trial. 15. The judgments cited by the learned counsel are of no help to the petitioners as in all these judgments, trial was already complete, whereas in the instant case, the petitioners are facing trial. 16. 15. The judgments cited by the learned counsel are of no help to the petitioners as in all these judgments, trial was already complete, whereas in the instant case, the petitioners are facing trial. 16. In the present case, from the perusal of challan and recovery memo, it is apparent that the petitioner while responding to the notice given under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act dated 30.7.2021 at 12.40 PM, gave his consent for being searched by the S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali i.e. Seizure Officer (PW-4). Thus, prima-facie, the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had been made. Further, the trial has already commenced, therefore, no final finding is required to be given in this regard. 17. As far as argument with regard to violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act is concerned, suffice it to note that present petitioners were duly informed about the grounds of their arrest and therefore, it cannot be said that their arrest in connection with offences under various sections of NDPS Act was illegal. 18. So far as the argument advanced by learned counsel regarding violation of the provisions of Section 55 of NDPS Act is concerned, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Leema, 2009 (8) SCALE 564 (SC) has clearly observed that provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act are merely directory in nature. Thus, no indulgence can be extended to the petitioner on this count at the stage of bail. 19. As far as argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner (Kishore) regarding his innocence is concerned, suffice it to note that both the petitioners were found at the place from where, huge quantity of contraband has been recovered. That apart, during personal search of the petitioner, contraband (smack) weighing 10 gms. was recovered from his personal possession. The argument of the learned counsel thus deserves to be rejected. 20. This court is also conscious of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 , wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court has observed as under: “.......Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). 20. This court is also conscious of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 , wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court has observed as under: “.......Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail, the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for.” 21. Similarly, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Md. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100 considered the position of law with regard to Section 37 of NDPS Act and held that the test which the High Court are required to apply while granting bail is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Considering the seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed. 22. In view of discussion made herein-above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 23. Consequently, the bail applications are rejected.