ORDER : 1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being NCB/AZU/CR-11/2022 registered with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad of the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 30, 35, 54(A), 54(C) and 54(D) of the NDPS Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.06.2022 at around 13:10 hours, the Narcotics Control Bureau, Ahmedabad received a tip-off that four persons, namely, Srinivas Karre, Sathyantha Pothuganthi, Mohammad Sahajat Shaikh and Rahul SK are involved in illegal manufacturing of huge quantity of Alprazolam at Parshvanath Dye Chem, Plot C1B, 2409, GIDC, Phase-3, Vapi, Valsad (Gujarat) without having any valid license which is a prohibited substance under the NDPS Act. The said information was, in turn, conveyed to the Assistant Director of NCB, Ahmedabad on the very same day and as per the direction of the Assistant Director of NCB, Ahmedabad Shri Lalit Sharma, JIO, formed a team of officers and staff members and moved towards Vapi. Thereafter, after reaching near the place of offence, two persons were called for to act as the Panchas. Thereafter, the team of the NCB reached to the factory and went inside through the small gate. One person was standing there, who upon asking his name, told his name as Rahul SK. Thereafter, the officer asked Rahul SK about the other persons to which Rahul SK informed that they are sleeping in the rooms on the first floor. Therefore, the officers of the NCB along with the Panchas went to the first floor of the factory with Rahul SK where they found three persons sleeping. Upon asking their names, they disclosed their names as Srinivas Karre, Sathyanna Pothuganthi and Mohammad Sahajat which were matching with the secret information received by the NCB. Thereafter, the said officer introduced himself and the other members of the staff to those persons and informed them about the secret information that they are illegally producing/manufacturing Alprazolam at the said factory to which they agreed and confessed that they are manufacturing the contraband substance Alprazolam in the said factory. Upon asking them about any valid license for carrying out such an activity, they informed that they do not have any such license. Upon asking them about any valid license for carrying out such an activity, they informed that they do not have any such license. Thereafter, upon further inquiry, they told the officers that they are merely a hired persons and that they are doing such an illegal activity under the instructions of Venkatesh Nomula and Rafiqul Shaikh. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the name of the present applicant-accused came on surface. The role attributed to the present applicant-accused is that he was doing the fabrication work in the factory on the instructions of the co-accused Venkatesh Nomulla and Rafiqul Shaikh. Hence, the impugned FIR. 3. Learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 30.07.2022 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has further submitted that the NCB has registered complaint before the Special Judge, Vapi against total eight persons. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons, in collusion with each other, have hatched a criminal conspiracy to illegally manufacture the contraband substance Alprazolam/Nordazepam in the factory at Vapi and accordingly have played their individual role. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has further submitted that so far as the role of the present applicant-accused is concerned, the allegation against the present applicant-accused is that he was doing the fabrication work in the said factory. Except this, no other specific role is attributed to the present applicant-accused. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has also submitted that the present applicant-accused is not directly or indirectly connected with the commission of crime and he has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of the statement of the other co-accused. It is submitted that such kind of statement is inadmissible in evidence as per the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has also submitted that the present applicant-accused was not found in conscious possession of the contraband substance and he was not present at the factory when the raid was carried out by the police. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that nothing has been recovered or discovered at the instance of the applicant-accused. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has also submitted that the present applicant-accused was not found in conscious possession of the contraband substance and he was not present at the factory when the raid was carried out by the police. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that nothing has been recovered or discovered at the instance of the applicant-accused. The applicant-accused is a senior citizen aged about 70 years who is languishing in jail since the date of his arrest. Under the circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Joshi prays that there being merit in this application the same be allowed and the applicant-accused be released on bail. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Kartik Pandya appearing for the NCB has vehemently opposed the present bail application and submitted that a specific role of the present applicant-accused is clearly spelt out from the body of the compilation of the charge-sheet papers wherein it is clearly stated by the Investigating Officer that the applicant-accused is involved in the commission of the crime since very inception. All the accused persons, in connivance with each other, were indulged in manufacturing and trafficking of contraband Alprazolam/Nordazepam without obtaining any valid license from the competent authority. They started manufacturing the contraband substance in the factory premises and as a part of the manufacturing process, they have purchased some chemicals with the help of each other and during the course of investigation, money was also recovered at the instance of the applicant-accused. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has further submitted that the Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation, has collected the CDR which indicates that the applicant-accused was in constant touch with the other accused. It is further submitted that for the manufacturing of contraband substance, the applicant-accused has provided apparatus for the establishment of the factory. It is also submitted that during the course of raid, huge quantity (commercial quantity) of contraband substance was found from the factory premises. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted that the kingpin of the entire conspiracy is one Venkatesh Nomula whose bail application has not been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the said order has been assailed by the said accused before the Hon’ble Apex Court which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The role of the present applicant-accused is similar to the role of the said accused. Learned advocate Mr. The role of the present applicant-accused is similar to the role of the said accused. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted looking to the quantity of the contraband substance which is commercial in nature, rigors of Section 37 would come into play. Therefore, considering the above stated factual aspects, the present application, being devoid of any merit, the same may be rejected and the applicant-accused may not be enlarged on bail. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant herein. 6. In light of the aforesaid, it is pertinent to refer and analyze the provisions and objective of the NDPS Act. Section 37 of the Act reads as under: “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, and (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 and 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.” 7. In view of the gravity of the consequences of drug trafficking, the offences under the NDPS Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable. The Section does not allow granting bail for offences punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and for offences involving commercial quantity unless the two-fold conditions prescribed under the Section have been met. In view of the gravity of the consequences of drug trafficking, the offences under the NDPS Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable. The Section does not allow granting bail for offences punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and for offences involving commercial quantity unless the two-fold conditions prescribed under the Section have been met. The conditions include: a) hearing the Public Prosecutor; and b) Satisfaction of the court based on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is likely to not commit an offence of a similar nature. 8. The fetters on the power to grant bail does not end here, they are over and above the consideration of relevant factors that must be done while considering the question of granting bail. The court also needs to be satisfied before grant of bail about the scheme of Section 439 of the Code. Thus, it is evident that the present section limits the discretion of the court in matters of bail by placing certain additional factors over and above, what has been prescribed under the Code. 9. The contours of Section 37 of the Act have been analysed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429 . In this case, the Apex Court adjudged the validity of the order on bail granted by the High Court in a case registered under the Act. The Hon’ble Court extracted the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the introduction of amended Section 37 of the Act through Bill No. 125 of 1988. It is relevant to extract those for the present analysis, which reads as: "6. The aforesaid section is incorporated to achieve the object as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Bill No. 125 of 1988 thus: "Even though the major offences are non-bailable by virtue of the level of punishments, on technical grounds, drug offenders were being released on bail. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the need to amend the law to further strengthen it, has been felt."(emphasis supplied) 7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the need to amend the law to further strengthen it, has been felt."(emphasis supplied) 7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact 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 be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa [ (1990) 1 SCC 95 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) "24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine." 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100 has reiterated the position of law with respect to Section 37 of the Act. After analysing the previous decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the court prescribed the following test for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act: "20. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100 has reiterated the position of law with respect to Section 37 of the Act. After analysing the previous decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the court prescribed the following test for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act: "20. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High Court and this Court are required to apply while granting bail is whether 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. Given 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." 11. In the instant case, the case of the applicant and his role in the entire sequence of events is not as simple as has been projected during the entire course of arguments by learned counsel for the applicant. He is not merely arrested for the small quantity of contraband but has been implicated for his role as being a part of a larger drug trafficking. Here, in the present case, the applicant is charged for commercial quantity weighing 68.226 kg of Nordazepam and 8.4 kg of Alprazolam and, therefore, his bail application needs to be decided as per Section 37 of the Act. It prima facie appears from the materials produced on record that the applicant-accused was indulged in the said illegal activity since very beginning and he was providing the logistic support to the main accused in the manufacture of contraband psychotropic Substance in the factory and he was part of the conspiracy since very beginning. Thus, looking to the quantum of punishment the applicant-accused is likely to face, nature of accusation gravity of offence and in view of Bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant-accused is not entitled for releasing on regular bail in the present case. 12. Thus, looking to the quantum of punishment the applicant-accused is likely to face, nature of accusation gravity of offence and in view of Bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant-accused is not entitled for releasing on regular bail in the present case. 12. At the time of granting bail, the court has to consider the role played by the applicant-accused in the commission of the offence as well as gravity of offence and in the present case, considering the role played by the applicant in the offence, as the act of the applicant would effect to the youth of the nation, I am of the opinion that the present application is required to be rejected. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the Act are not satisfied and there are no "reasonable grounds" to presume the accused as not being guilty of the offence. Thus, this Court is not inclined to allow the instant bail application as being devoid of any merit and hence, liable to be rejected. 14. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.