ORDER : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - The limited prayer in this criminal misc. application is for release of passport of the petitioner which has been deposited by him with the learned trial Court in pursuance of the order dated 06.04.2016, passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12201/2015: Jitendra Bhai Panchal v. Union of India through D.R.I., Jodhpur, while enlarging him on bail in connection with C.R. No. D.R.I./A.Z.U./G.I.01/NDPS-01/2015, Police Station Sub Unit, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 8/22, 25, 29 & 38 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. The order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.04.2016 in S.B. Criminal Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12201/2015: Jitendra Bhai Panchal v. Union of India through D.R.I., Jodhpur reads as under:- "The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with C.R. No. D.R.I./A.Z.U./G.I.01/NDPS-01/2015, Police Station Sub Unit, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 8/22, 25, 29 & 38 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The recovery in the present case is 218.43 kgs. of Mephedrone from M/s Rishi Minechem Pvt. Limited, who is allegedly the manufacturer of the said contraband. The one of the co-accused, namely, Manoharlal Ainani who is stated to be the main conspirator, gave the contract to M/s Rishi Minechem for manufacture of the Mephedrone. The coaccused Monoharlal Ainani during the investigation named the present petitioner to whom he had sold almost 60 kgs. of Mephedrone of some earlier consignment. The petitioner was, accordingly, arrested in pursuance to the said statement. Learned counsel for the respondent - U.O.I. while vehemently opposing the bail submitted as under :- (a) As per the statement of co-accused Manoharlal Ainani, he had earlier sold the consignment of Mephedrone to the present petitioner and on being asked about the value of the same, he stated that he had received Rs. 20,000/- per kilogram in cash from Jitendra Bhai Panchal i.e. present petitioner. He also gave out the contact number, on which he was in communication with the present petitioner. (b) During the scrutiny of the phone of the co-accused Manoharlal Ainani, the S.M.S. and Whatsapp Messages were found. (c) Learned counsel while developing his arguments submitted that the present petitioner could not explain as to why Rs. 4 lacs were given to Manoharlal Ainani. (b) During the scrutiny of the phone of the co-accused Manoharlal Ainani, the S.M.S. and Whatsapp Messages were found. (c) Learned counsel while developing his arguments submitted that the present petitioner could not explain as to why Rs. 4 lacs were given to Manoharlal Ainani. It is further stated that even the Bank Manager through whom the present petitioner is stated to have met Manoharlal Ainani did not corroborate that he knew the present petitioner. Hence, his answers were not found satisfactory and therefore, for all intends and purposes, he is involved in the present case. Heard. The only message that connected the present petitioner in the present case was :- "Adrenalone Hydrocloride Cas no 62-13-5". The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The specific questions and his answers with respect to the same were :- "Question 1: Please tell about the SMS received from Manohar Lal Ainani 29.04.2015 (04.:06 PM) regarding Adernalone HCI stated as under :- "Adrenalone Hydrocloride Cas no 62-13-5" Answer: I state that Manoharlal Ainani must have enquired about this material and I have replied him as "no" telephonically. Question-2: Please state what is the said chemical "Adernalone Hydrocloride Cas no 62-13-5" and where it is used ? Ans: I have no idea about this chemical content and its use. Question-3: The said chemical is also known as "mephedrone", which is a banned substance under NDPS Act, 1985, from the communication with Shri. Mahonarlal Ainani it appears that you were also involved with him otherwise why he had sent you this sms, please clarify in this regard. Ans: He must be looking for the chemical therefore he sent the sms. I don't know about the chemical. From the above, it is evident that the only evidence against the present petitioner is the statement of the coaccused Manoharlal Ainani. At this stage, text of the S.M.S. does not, in any way, established that the present petitioner is involved in the purchase and sale of the said contraband. The investigating agency has collected no details with respect to the chemical Adrenalone Hydrocloride. It is not disputed that the said chemical is not Mephedrone. At this stage, text of the S.M.S. does not, in any way, established that the present petitioner is involved in the purchase and sale of the said contraband. The investigating agency has collected no details with respect to the chemical Adrenalone Hydrocloride. It is not disputed that the said chemical is not Mephedrone. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had adjourned the matter twice to enable the respondent - D.R.I. to produce requisite data of the mobile set seized from the present petitioner but they have not been able to do so and it is admitted that the requisite software to enable them to recover the said data is still not available. The last argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent - D.R.I. was that the petitioner was earlier also involved in a similar case of recovery of Hashish in America and he was deported to India. Admittedly, he stands acquitted in the said case. It appears that the petitioner is being kept in the custody merely on suspicion. Thus, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused petitioner - Jitendra Bhai Panchal S/o Manaklal Panchal shall be enlarged on bail subject to depositing his passport with the trial court and furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he will not leave the country without prior permission of this Court and provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so." 3. Learned counsel submitted that the wife and daughter of the petitioner are residing in U.S.A and the petitioner has been unable to visit U.S.A. to meet his family due to pendency of the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the wife of the petitioner being at an advance age, is not keeping well, therefore, he needs to go to U.S.A. to look after her. Learned counsel submitted that there is no question of the petitioner misusing the concession of going abroad (U.S.A.). 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the wife of the petitioner being at an advance age, is not keeping well, therefore, he needs to go to U.S.A. to look after her. Learned counsel submitted that there is no question of the petitioner misusing the concession of going abroad (U.S.A.). 4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that in the interest of justice, the condition of bail (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12201/2015) that requires him to surrender his passport to the learned trial Court may be deleted. 5. Per Contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that the condition of depositing the passport with the learned trial Court imposed upon the petitioner should be maintained. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a habitual Narcotics Drugs offender, inasmuch as, in the year 1988, the petitioner was apprehended in U.S.A. for selling 1100 kgs of Hashish and was sentenced for 12 years of imprisonment. Further, in the year 2002, he was again arrested in U.S.A and sentenced to 54 months of imprisonment for dealing in 565.2 kgs Hashish. 6. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the illegal activities of the petitioner, he was deported to India directly from prison, after completion of the sentences awarded to him by the Courts of U.S.A. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor prayed that the present application seeking modification of the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12201/2015: Jitendra Bhai Panchal v. Union of India through D.R.I., Jodhpur, may be rejected straightaway. 7. Heard. 8. Having carefully gone through the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court granting bail to the petitioner for the offences under NDPS Act, subject to his depositing passport with learned trial Court and furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he will not leave the country without permission of this Court, this Court prima facie finds that the aforesaid condition was imposed for the reason that in case, the petitioner goes abroad (U.S.A.), he is likely to abscond. The reply to the present misc. application filed on behalf of the respondent clearly indicates that the petitioner is a habitual offender. The respondents have also shown an apprehension that there is strong possibility that if the petitioner is permitted to leave country, he will not come back to India. 9. The reply to the present misc. application filed on behalf of the respondent clearly indicates that the petitioner is a habitual offender. The respondents have also shown an apprehension that there is strong possibility that if the petitioner is permitted to leave country, he will not come back to India. 9. This Court also finds that though an argument with regard to illness of the wife of the petitioner, who resides in U.S.A. has been raised however, no document to support the aforesaid contention has been placed on record with the present application. 10. Keeping in view the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made in this application for release of the passport, which the petitioner has deposited in pursuance of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.04.2016. 11. The present criminal misc. application is therefore, rejected. However, in view of the fact that trial against the petitioner is pending since 2015, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than 8 months from the date of passing of this order. If need arises, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis in accordance with law.