JUDGMENT : DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. 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. NCB/AZU/C.R. No. 03 of 2019 registered with the NCB Police Station, Ahmedabad of the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. A quick glance at the FIR reveals the following: 3.1 The present complaint has been filed by Amit Kumar Khare, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad stating that on 26.04.2019, his Department received a tip-off that three persons, namely, Karpur Sahu, Rakesh Sahu and Ajit Kumar Sahu onboard in Coach No. B-5 of Puri-Ahmedabad express train having seat Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are carrying with them six bags containing 80 kg Ganja to be delivered to the person at Bharuch which train would be stationed at Surat railway station on 27.04.2019 at around 03:25 hours. All the aforesaid three persons boarded the train from Khalikot, Odisha. 3.2 The said secret information was then reduced into writing and forwarded to the Superintendent of NCB, Ahmedabad on the very same day which was acknowledged by Shri Harish Kumar, Superintendent, NCB, Ahmedabad who then instructed Shri Rahul Tomar, Intelligence Officer to form a team and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 3.3 Accordingly, on 27.04.2019, the Intelligence Officer Shri Rahul Tomar along with the other fellow officers reached at the Surat railway station where two Panchas were also called for and got acquainted with the secret information by the intelligence officer. The police personnel also introduced themselves to the Panchas. Thereafter, necessary procedure of raid also came to be followed. 3.4 Thereafter, on 27.04.2019, at around 3:40 hours, Puri-Ahmedabad express arrived at the Surat railway station and stayed for some time. During that period, the officers of the NCB along with the RPF and Panchas entered into the Coach No. B-5 and reached at berth Nos. 5, 6 and 7 where they found three persons sitting over there. Thereafter, the Intelligence Officer Shri Rahul Tomar introduced himself to those persons and asked about their identities, whereupon, they identified themselves as Karpur Sahu, Rakesh Sahu and Ajir Kumar Sahu which were matching with the names given in the secret information. 5, 6 and 7 where they found three persons sitting over there. Thereafter, the Intelligence Officer Shri Rahul Tomar introduced himself to those persons and asked about their identities, whereupon, they identified themselves as Karpur Sahu, Rakesh Sahu and Ajir Kumar Sahu which were matching with the names given in the secret information. 3.5 Thereafter, all the accused got acquainted with the secret information that they are indulged in the illegal trafficking of narcotic substance Ganja and are having 80 kg Ganja with them. Thereafter, they were asked to show their bags and upon search being carried out of all the bags, total 83 kg Ganja was recovered by the police. Hence, FIR came to be lodged against all the accused persons. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Kishan Daiya appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 27.04.2019 and since then he is in jail, i.e. for more than three and half years. Learned advocate Mr. Daiya has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is moreso submitted that in the charge-sheet papers, number of witnesses have been cited by the investigator, out of which, only nine witnesses have been examined so far which is indicative of the fact that the trial would take considerable long period of time to conclude and the applicant-accused has already spent more than three and half years in jail. Learned advocate Mr. Daiya has also submitted that the statement of the applicant-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act also came to be recorded by the investigator wherein he has stated that one Mitu introduced him to the other co-accused and handed over the narcotic substance Ganja for delivering it to the person at Bharuch for which he was supposed to get a very meager amount of Rs. 5,000/-. It is submitted that the applicant-accused is neither the supplier nor the recipient of the narcotic drug and he acted only as the carrier on receiving a some meager amount. Learned advocate Mr. Daiya has submitted that the applicant-accused is a young boy aged about 19 years and, therefore, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant-accused, he may be released on bail on any suitable terms and conditions. To buttress this argument, learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Daiya has submitted that the applicant-accused is a young boy aged about 19 years and, therefore, considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant-accused, he may be released on bail on any suitable terms and conditions. To buttress this argument, learned advocate Mr. Daiya has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 4169 of 2023, decided on 13.07.2023. 5. Learned Mr. Kartik Pandya representing the respondent No. 2-Narcotics Control Bureau has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted that on the basis of the specific inputs received by the office of the NCB, they carried out a raid at the pointed place from where the applicant-accused was caught red-handed along with the other co-accused in conscious possession with the narcotic substance Ganja weighing 83 kgs which is a commercial quantity and, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would also come into play. The present applicant-accused is a resident of Odisha which is known for trafficking of this kind contraband articles and there are all possible chances that the applicant-accused may once again indulge in this kind of activity, if released on bail. There are also all possible chances that the applicant-accused may run away from the trial proceedings and, therefore, to secure his presence, he may not be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that there are in all total three accused persons and a huge quantity of 83 kg of Ganja is found from their conscious possession and, therefore, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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. (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.” 8. 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. (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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. The contours of Section 37 of the Act have been analysed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. 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. 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. 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 vs. Chief Secretary, 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.” 11. Thus, what is evident from the above is that the offences prescribed under the Act are not only a menace to a particular individual but to the entire society especially, the youth of the country. Such offences have a cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a substantial chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years. Thus, to prevent the devastating impact on the people of the nation, Parliament in its wisdom deemed it fit to introduce stringent conditions for grant of bail under the Act. The Court must stay mindful of the legislative intent and mandate of the Act while considering the question bail in such matters. 12. As far as condition under Section 37(b)(i) is concerned, there is no ambiguity in its interpretation. It gives effect to the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Since the crime is an act against the society, the legislature has contemplated that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose a bail application under the Act. 12. As far as condition under Section 37(b)(i) is concerned, there is no ambiguity in its interpretation. It gives effect to the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Since the crime is an act against the society, the legislature has contemplated that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose a bail application under the Act. Additionally, under Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the court is not required to be merely satisfied about the dual conditions i.e. prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offence while on bail, but the court must have “reasonable grounds” for such satisfaction. 13. The term “reasonable grounds” under Section 37(b) (ii) has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 . It was a case where an appeal was preferred against the order granting bail under the NDPS Act by the High Court. The prosecution alleged that the raiding party seized nearly 400 kgs of poppy straw from the possession of the accused therein. The special court rejected the bail while the High Court granted the bail on the ground that the recovery was not from the exclusive possession of the accused, but other family members were also involved. The Supreme Court set aside the order granting bail. In this context, it interpreted “reasonable grounds” under Section 37 of the Act, as under: “7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable grounds.” The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. The word “reasonable” has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word “reasonable.” 14. Thus, the term “reasonable grounds” is not capable of any rigid definition, but its meaning and scope will be determined based on the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word “reasonable.” 14. Thus, the term “reasonable grounds” is not capable of any rigid definition, but its meaning and scope will be determined based on the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, what may be reasonable in one set of facts may not be reasonable in another set of facts. However, the standard of satisfaction in such cases is more than mere satisfaction on a prima facie opinion. Thus, the court before exercising its discretion for granting the bail must record the reasonable grounds before granting bail to the accused. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. 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.” 16. Thus, the court must be conscious about the mischief that is sought to be curbed by the Act and the consequences that might ensue if the person accused of the offence under the Act is released on bail. The court ought to be satisfied on the basis of reasonable grounds discernible from the facts and circumstances that the applicant is not guilty of offences that the accused is charged with. Additionally, the court also needs to be satisfied that the person so released will not commit the offence while being on bail. Both the conditions are interlinked because the legislature intends that in cases where there is a possibility of commission of this grave offence under the Act, the person need not be released. It is so because if the person is released, he is most likely to repeat the offence, thus impacting the society at large. Both the conditions are interlinked because the legislature intends that in cases where there is a possibility of commission of this grave offence under the Act, the person need not be released. It is so because if the person is released, he is most likely to repeat the offence, thus impacting the society at large. Thus, to not give any leeway to the accused, the court has to be satisfied about the dual conditions on reasonable grounds. 17. 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 83 kg and, therefore, his bail application needs to be decided as per Section 37 of the Act. Total three persons were caught from the train by the police along with six different bags containing the contraband Ganja weighing 83 kg. The applicant-accused was found with the two bags in his possession containing contraband Ganja. All requisite procedures had also been followed as per the law and, thereafter, the accused persons came to be arrested. The present applicant-accused is originally resident of Odisha and, therefore, the possibility of his fleeing away from the trial is also required to be kept in mind while deciding the present application. At the time of granting bail, the court has to also 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. 18. In view of what has been observed herein above, the instant bail application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.