JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in a case arising out of Narcotics Control Bureau(NCB) Crime No. 0016 of 2021 for offences under Sections 8, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). 2. As per the complaint, on 25.11.2021, an information was received by the NCB officials that co-accused-Faiz Ahmed Sheikh is carrying huge quantities of narcotics “Spasmo Proxyvon Plus” which contains tramadol and that he is proceeding from New Delhi to Jammu in a Bus bearing registration No. HR 55 AC 8798. On the basis of this information, the NCB Team reached Sarore, Toll Plaza, Samba at about 0430 hours on 26.11.2021, where they intercepted a Bus bearing No. HR 55 AC 8798 and the same was subjected to search. Accused Faiz Ahmed Sheikh was found travelling in the said Bus and from his seat, a red and grey coloured bag was recovered that was found to contain boxes of “Spasmo Proxyvon Plus” inside it. A total number of 3456 capsules were recovered and each capsule was found to contain Tramadol Hydrochloride 50 mg. Accused-Faiz Ahmed Sheikh could not produce any legal document authorizing him possession of the said capsules. The capsules were seized and the samples were sealed. 3. Accused-Faiz Ahmed Sheikh in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act disclosed that he had received these capsules from one Saleem, a resident of Delhi and that the same were to be handed over to Javed Ahmed, the petitioner herein. He further disclosed that in the previous past, he had brought two consignments of “Spasmo Proxyvon Plus” from Saleem and delivered the same to the petitioner. Accused- Faiz Ahmed Sheikh was taken into custody. 4. It has been alleged that the petitioner at the relevant time was in custody in another case and after obtaining permission from learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, the statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the Act was recorded. Based upon his confessional statement, offences under Sections 8, 22 and 29 of the Act were found established against him. 5. It has also been stated in the complaint that during investigation of the case, it was found that the petitioner was using mobile No. 8715082292 that had been provided to him by his brother-in-law-Zahoor Ahmed Dar. Based upon his confessional statement, offences under Sections 8, 22 and 29 of the Act were found established against him. 5. It has also been stated in the complaint that during investigation of the case, it was found that the petitioner was using mobile No. 8715082292 that had been provided to him by his brother-in-law-Zahoor Ahmed Dar. The CDR analysis of the mobile number under the use of the petitioner and the mobile number under the use of co-accused-Faiz Ahmed Sheikh revealed that both of them were actively in contact with each other. 6. The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that no recovery has been effected from him and that he has been implicated on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused-Faiz Ahmed Sheikh, which is not admissible in evidence. It has been further contended that merely because the petitioner was found to be in contact with the co-accused-Faiz Ahmed Sheikh, does not show his involvement in the alleged crime. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions that this Court may impose upon him in case, he is granted bail. 7. The respondents have contested the bail application on the grounds that the petitioner is involved in a case relating to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband as such, rigor of Section 37 of the Act is applicable to his case. It has been further contended that there is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner is prima facie involved in the alleged crime. It is also contended that the petitioner, if released on bail, may escape the clutches of law and he may indulge in similar crimes having regard to his previous history. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of the trial court. 9. It appears that prior to filing of instant bail application, the petitioner had approached the trial court for grant of bail but his bail application was rejected by the learned trial court in terms of order dated 28.09.2022 by holding that there is no basis for exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner as it cannot be stated that he is not guilty of an offence under the Act. It is a settled law that a superior court has jurisdiction to entertain the bail application of an accused even if his bail application has been dismissed by the inferior criminal court. Therefore, merely because earlier bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the trial court does not preclude this Court from considering the instant application on its own merits. 10. As already stated, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner in conspiracy with co-accused-Faiz Ahmed Sheikh has indulged in possession and trade of commercial quantity of contraband substance. Thus, provisions contained in Section 37 of the Act are attracted to the instant case. The aforementioned provision 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 1[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.”. 11. From a bare perusal of the afore-quoted provision, it is clear that the bail can be granted to an accused who has been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of contraband in the following circumstances: (i) if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of said offence and (ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 12. The expression “reasonable grounds” appearing in Section 37 of the Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the State of Kerala and others v Rajesh and others, (2020) 12 SCC 122 , to mean something more than prima facie grounds. 12. The expression “reasonable grounds” appearing in Section 37 of the Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the State of Kerala and others v Rajesh and others, (2020) 12 SCC 122 , to mean something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates credible and plausible grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. According to the Supreme Court, the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. 13. In the instant case, the material on record against the petitioner is the confessional statement of co-accused-Faiz Ahmed Sheikh recorded under Section 67 of the Act and the call detail records which show that he was in contact with the petitioner. There is no other material connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime. Admittedly, the contraband, which is subject matter of the complaint, has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The question that arises for determination is whether in the presence of the aforesaid material, there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence. 14. So far as confession of co-accused- Faiz Ahmed Sheikh recorded under Section 67 of the Act as also the confession of the petitioner recorded under the same provision by the officials of the NCB is concerned, the same is not admissible in evidence. Law on the subject has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Toofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 . Therefore, the statement of co-accused as well as statement of the petitioner recorded by the officials of the NCB under Section 67 of the Act cannot be read against the petitioner. 15. The only other material against the petitioner is the call data record of his phone which shows that he was in contact with the co-accused- Faiz Ahmed Sheikh from whom the contraband substance was recovered. There is no recording of the conversation between the co-accused and the petitioner, available with the prosecution that would go on show the nature and particulars of conversation between the petitioner and the co-accused. There is no recording of the conversation between the co-accused and the petitioner, available with the prosecution that would go on show the nature and particulars of conversation between the petitioner and the co-accused. Thus, prima facie, it appears that in the absence of any substantive material showing involvement of the petitioner, mere call data records showing contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, may not be enough to hold him guilty of the offence. It is not the case of the respondent-NCB that they are in possession of the recording of the conversation between the petitioner and the co-accused. Therefore, there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner may not be guilty of an offence under the Act. 16. Apart from the above, the complaint against the petitioner has been filed before the trial court on 17.05.2022 and he was arrested in April, 2022. Thus, the petitioner has been in custody for the last about two years. Charges against him stand already framed and the trial court record shows that a few prosecution witnesses have already been examined. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any tendency to tamper with the prosecution witnesses or to misuse the concession of bail. 17. Having regard to the fact that there are prima facie grounds to believe that the petitioner may not be guilty of an offence under the Act and taking into account the fact that he has been in custody for the last about two years and the conclusion of trial of the case is going to take considerable time, the petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. 18. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to the following conditions: (i) That he shall furnish surety bond and personal bond in the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac each to the satisfaction of the trial court. (ii) That he shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing without fail and his absence would entail cancellation of his bail on a motion by the prosecution. (iii) That he shall furnish particulars of his present residence and place of work along with his cell number(s) to the trial court as well as to the Public Prosecutor. (iii) That he shall furnish particulars of his present residence and place of work along with his cell number(s) to the trial court as well as to the Public Prosecutor. (iv) That he shall not tamper with or influence the prosecution witnesses and he shall not come into contact with them in any manner whatsoever. (v) That he shall not leave the limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the permission of the trial court. 19. The opinion expressed in this order on the issues involved is limited to the disposal of this petition and it shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 20. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.