JUDGMENT : 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 C.R. No.05 of 2021 (C.R. No.NCB/ AZU/CR No.06 of 2022) registered with the ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad of the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 27(a), 28, 29, 35 and 54(a) of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 09.11.2022 and since then he is in jail. Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is moreso submitted that the FIR came to be lodged against three accused persons who were caught red-handed along with the narcotics substance heroin weighing 118.650 kg. Pursuant to the registration of the first information report, investigation was ensued and during the course of investigation, on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused, the applicant- accused has been booked in the present offence. Learned advocate for the applicant-accused has further submitted that it is the specific case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, statement of the co-accused came to be recorded wherein he has very categorically stated that before commission of the present offence, on earlier occasion, he sold the contraband substance to the applicant-accused on number of occasions and on the strength of the said incriminating confessional statement made by the co-accused, the present applicant-accused has been roped into the present offence. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, nothing is recovered or discovered at the instance of the applicant-accused. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that, in fact, the present application is preferred at post-charge-sheet stage as the investigation has already been concluded, however, the statement on the basis of which, the present applicant-accused has been implicated in the present offence, is not formed part and parcel of the charge-sheet papers and, therefore, it can be said that there is no documentary evidence available against the applicant- accused in the entire compilation of the charge-sheet papers. It has been further submitted that the applicant-accused has been arraigned solely on the basis of statement of the co- accused, except that, no other incriminating materials is available against the applicant-accused. It has been further submitted that the applicant-accused has been arraigned solely on the basis of statement of the co- accused, except that, no other incriminating materials is available against the applicant-accused. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that as per the settled proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 SC 5592 , confessional statement made by the co-accused or the accused before the Investigating Officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is further submitted that at the time of opposing the bail application before the trial court, the Investigating Officer has relied upon two past antecedents against the applicant- accused. However, out of the two offences, in one offence, the applicant-accused has already been acquitted by the court concerned after considering and appreciating the overall materials available on record. So far as the other offence is concerned, the same is pending for adjudication before the competent court. To buttress his submissions, learned advocate for the applicant relies upon the following two decisions; (i) In the case of Bharat Chaudhary vs. Union of India, reported in 2021 (2) SCC (Cri) 246; (ii) A decision of this Court in the case of Mohammed Rafiq Mo. Shafi Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No.23047 of 2019; 3. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate appearing for the applicant prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and the applicant-accused be released on bail. 4. Per contra, Mr. Kartik Pandya, the learned standing counsel appearing for the NCB has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the role of the present applicant-accused is clearly spelt out from the body of the entire compilation of the charge-sheet papers. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has further submitted that the members of the raiding party received a specific inputs regarding the illegal trafficking of contraband heroin from Pakistan to India and acting upon the said tip-off, they carried out a raid and caught the accused persons named in the FIR. Thereafter, during the course of further investigation, name and specific role of the present applicant-accused has come on surface. Thereafter, during the course of further investigation, name and specific role of the present applicant-accused has come on surface. It is submitted that the co-accused has made a specific statement that at earlier point of time, on number of occasions, he sold the contraband heroin to the present applicant-accused. Not only that, thereafter, the present applicant-accused had sent money through one Angadiya firm and the statement of the person of the Angadiya firm has also been recorded wherein he has stated that he received a particular amount from Shriganganagar, Rajasthan. Not only that, the applicant-accused was in constant touch with the other co-accused and one of the co-accused, in his statement has stated that at the instance of the applicant-accused he went to Rajasthan to sell the contraband substance and stayed in the room of one hotel booked by the applicant-accused which is evident from the statement of the owner of the hotel and the documents collected by the Investigating Officer which clearly shows that on that particular day, the co-accused stayed in the room of one hotel booked by the applicant- accused. It is further submitted that the quantity falls under the category of commercial quantity is 250 grams whereas here in the case on hand, a leviathan quantity of contraband substance heroin 18.650 kg has been seized by the police and, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would also come into play. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted that, therefore, considering the role attributed to the applicant- accused as well as considering the above stated factual aspects, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant- accused. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. This Court has also considered the following aspects; (a) That the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed; (b) That the applicant-accused is in jail since 09.11.2022, i.e, for more than one year; (c) The prosecuting agency has failed to show any material from the papers of charge-sheet connecting the present applicant-accused with the felony; (d) That the present applicant-accused has not been named in the FIR and only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused, he has been booked in the present offence; (e) That the prosecuting agency has relied upon two past antecedents against the applicant-accused, however, out of the two offences, in one offence the applicant-accused has already been acquitted and another is still pending for adjudication which has nothing to do with the present offence as in the present case, there is no legally admissible evidence available on record so as to deny the bail to the present applicant-accused; (f) That in the case on hand, the psychotropic substance was not found from the conscious possession of the applicant- accused and, therefore, prima facie I am of the opinion that mere reliance on the statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to hold the applicant-accused guilty of the offence; 6. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.05 of 2021 (C.R. No.NCB/AZU/CR No.06 of 2022) registered with the ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad, on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; [f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; 9. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 11. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.