ORDER : Heard with the aid of case diary. This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, in connection with FIR/Crime No.09/2021 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station- NCB Regional Unit Indore, District Indore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20, 25, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Prosecution story, in brief is that on 14.08.2021 at around 08:00 PM, a secret information was received by NCB Unit Indore that co-accused persons Sher Khan @ Sheru Khan and Mahboob Ali are about to transport Cannabis (Ganja) in bulk quantity from Shirpur Maharashtra to Tarana, District Ujjain (M.P.) in a vehicle bearing registration No.RJ17-GA-6181. On 15.08.2021 at around 09:00 – 11:00 AM between Maksi and Tarana, they can be caught. On 15.08.2021, NCB team had stopped the aforementioned vehicle. Truck driver told his name to be Sheru and the helper told his name to be Mahboob Ali. During search of the vehicle, 400 sacks of rice straw were found and under them, in 44 sacks 1376.07 kgs. of Ganja was found. They had no licence to transport the contraband. Contraband and vehicle was seized from the accused persons. Statement of accused persons u/S 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded, wherein it has been revealed that present applicant Vijay Kisan Mohite @ Biju Beldar @ Bhau had given the contraband and vehicle to transport the same. Coaccused Mahboob Ali was to be given Rs.1,500/- and driver Sheru Khan was to be given Rs.5,000/- for the aforesaid act and contraband was to be given to coaccused Imran Khan. On 18.01.2022, present applicant Vijay Kisan Mohite was arrested and on 20.01.2022, his statement u/S 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded wherein he stated that he handed over the vehicle alongwith the contraband to co-accused Sheru Khan and Mahboob Ali, which was to be given to accused Imran Khan. Therefore, it has been revealed that the present applicant and co-accused Imran Khan were also involved in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case only on the basis of statement recorded u/S 67 of the NDPS Act of co-accused persons Sheru Khan, Mahboob Ali as well as his own statement. No contraband was seized from the possession of the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case only on the basis of statement recorded u/S 67 of the NDPS Act of co-accused persons Sheru Khan, Mahboob Ali as well as his own statement. No contraband was seized from the possession of the present applicant. There is no legal evidence available in the case against him except the statement recorded u/S 67 of the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that real name of the applicant is Vijay Kisan Mohite but he is implicated in the present case in the name of Vijay Mohite @ Biju Beldar @ Bhau. It is also submitted that statement recorded u/S 67 of the NDPS act is not admissible in evidence therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. He placed reliance on the case of Tofan Singh V State of Tamil Nadu [ (2021) 4 SCC 1 ], State (by NCB) Bengaluru V Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr. [ (2022) 12 SCC 633 ] and Bharat Chaudhary V Union of India [ (2021) 20 SCC 50 ]. 4. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicant that two other similar cases of likewise offence by Crime Branch Indore (Crime No.6/2021) and Police Station Amalner (Crime No.301/2021) but the applicant is granted bail in the aforementioned crimes. Applicant is in custody since 21.08.2023. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial will take considerable long time for its disposal, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/Union of India has opposed the prayer and submits that the applicant is an unlawful trader of Ganja. He has criminal antecedents and 02 criminal cases of likewise offence are registered against him at Indore (M.P.) and Amalner (M.H.) therefore, he is a habitual offender. It is also submitted that as per call details and CDR of mobile number of the applicant, he was in regular contact with the co-accused person at the relevant time. The case is involved with huge quantity of contraband, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. He has placed reliance in the case of Union of India (NCB) V Khalil Uddin etc. The case is involved with huge quantity of contraband, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. He has placed reliance in the case of Union of India (NCB) V Khalil Uddin etc. [(CRA No.1841- 1842/2022] and Union of India V Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu [CRA No.952/2023 arising out of SLP (Crl) No.2351/ 2023]. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. In the case of Tofan Singh (Supra), the Apex Court has held that statement recorded u/S 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence and the same cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused as well as cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. 8. In the case of Bharat Chaudhary (Supra), the following was laid down by the Apex Court:- “14. In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the conscious possession of A-4, we are of the opinion that mere reliance on the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order dated 15th July, 2021. This is all the more so when such a reliance runs contrary to the ruling in Tofan Singh (supra). The impugned order qua A-4 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside and the order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, is restored. As for Raja Chandrasekharan [A-1], since the charge sheet has already been filed and by now the said accused has remained in custody for over a period of two years, it is deemed appropriate to release him on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court." 9. In the case of Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr. (Supra), the following was laid down by the Apex Court:- “12. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless." 10. In the case of Khalil Uddin etc. (Supra), the Apex Court after considering the case of Tofan Singh (Supra) and Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Anr. (Supra) has observed as under:- “The answer to said question could be the statement recorded of Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded under Section 67 of the Act has also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 has been pronounced upon by this Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu. In State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69], the rigour of law lay down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail. However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by the High Court and direct that both the appellants be taken in custody forthwith.” 11. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by the High Court and direct that both the appellants be taken in custody forthwith.” 11. In the case of Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu (Supra), the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 13, 15 & 16 as under:- “13. In light of the above, the grant of bail to the above two accused persons - the driver of the vehicle and the helper, does not seem to be a good and sufficient reason for granting bail to the respondent-accused. The above two accused are not the main accused, but the vicarious agents of the respondent-accused, who is the main person in drug trafficking and was involved in the above illegal transactions. The role of the respondent-accused is clearly different from that of the driver and the helper, the other two co- accused. The co-accused Om Prakash Yadav in his affidavit filed in support of his bail application before the High Court admitted the involvement of the respondentaccused and his role as the mastermind of the illegal trade, as is evident from the order of his release on bail. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in releasing him on bail in the same manner as the above two accused persons. “15. For the sake of convenience Section 37(1) is reproduced herein below:- “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 2[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. 16. 16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." 12. On due consideration of the rival submissions and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case so also considering the huge commercial quantity of narcotic substance, prima-facie, it does not appear that the applicant is not guilty therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. Resultantly, application for bail is dismissed.