JUDGMENT : 1. By this common judgment, above-titled two petitions filed by the petitioner, one challenging order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”), whereby charges for offences under Sections 8/20/29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity “the NDPS Act”) have been framed against the petitioner and other seeking bail in a case arising out of complaint bearing NCB Crime No. 16/2022 dated 01.07.2022, registered with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu for offences under Sections 8/20/29 and 60 of the NDPS Act, are proposed to be disposed of. 2. As per the case projected in the complaint filed by the respondent- NCB against the petitioner and co-accused, on 01.07.2022, an information was received by the officials of the NCB that co-accused, Ghulam Mohiud-Din Shah, Ghulam Nabi Lone, Mohd Shafi Dar, Raju Ash Mohd alongwith the petitioner were carrying huge quantity of narcotic substance i.e. charas, concealed inside the spare tyre in Vehicle bearing registration No. JK05F 2441 (i10 Hyundai) that was proceeding from Srinagar towards Jammu. On the basis of this information, a case was registered. Thereafter, the NCB team, at about 0220 hours, intercepted the car bearing registration No. JK05F 2441 near Petrol Pump, Gumat Chowk, Jammu. After a few minutes, another car bearing registration No. DL06CP 6592 also reached the spot and both the cars were surrounded by the NCB team. While the petitioner and co-accused, Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah, Mohd Shafi Dar and Raju were found sitting inside the vehicle bearing No. JK05F 2441, co-accused Javaid Ahmad Parray, Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi and Mohd Akbar Khan were found travelling in vehicle bearing No. DL06CP 6592. Both the vehicles were subjected to search and from vehicle bearing No. JK05F-2441, five packets were recovered from the spare tyre of the car. These packets were found to contain 09.700 Kgs. of charas. However, nothing was recovered from the other car. The recovered charas was seized, the samples were prepared and sealed and panchnama was also prepared. 3. During investigation of the case, accused Ghulam Mohiud-Din Shah disclosed that charas was received by him from unknown person from Srinagar and that it was to be delivered to co-accused Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi. He further disclosed that he was to get an amount of Rs. 11 lacs upon delivery of the charas to the designated person. 3. During investigation of the case, accused Ghulam Mohiud-Din Shah disclosed that charas was received by him from unknown person from Srinagar and that it was to be delivered to co-accused Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi. He further disclosed that he was to get an amount of Rs. 11 lacs upon delivery of the charas to the designated person. Similarly, the statement of accused Ghulam Nabi Lone was also recorded, who disclosed that he had associated with and accompanied accused Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah, the main supplier of the charas. The statement of accused, Mohd Shafi Dar was also recorded, in which he admitted that he is an associate of Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah and Ghulam Nabi Lone. The statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was also recorded. He also admitted his association with Ghulam Mohidin Shah, Ghulam Nabi Lone and Mohd Shafi Dar. The statement of co-accused Raju was also recorded and he also admitted his association with other accused. Similarly, statements of accused Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi, Javaid Ahmd Parray and Mohd Akbar Khan were also recorded, who all admitted having association with other co-accused in the matter of transportation of the recovered charas. 4. During investigation of the case, the FSL report in respect of the samples of the recovered charas was obtained and call detail records of the mobile numbers of the accused were also obtained. It was found that the accused were using mobile numbers 9906725102, 9541172944, 9596088202, 9906701229 and 9622883690. The call detail records with effect from 01.05.2022 to 01.07.2022 were obtained and it was found that accused Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi, Javaid Ahmad Parray, Ghulam Nabi Lone, Mohd Shafi Dar and Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah were in constant touch with each other. Upon analysis of call details of mobile No. 7889521917, that was registered in the name of brother of the petitioner but was under the use of the petitioner, it was found that he was in constant touch with the main supplier, namely, Ghulam Nabi Lone, who was using mobile No. 9596088202. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act were found established against the accused persons and the complaint was presented before the trial court. 5. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act were found established against the accused persons and the complaint was presented before the trial court. 5. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 04.03.2023, while discharging accused Mohd Shafi Dar, Raju, Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi, Javaid Ahmad Parray and Mohd Akbar Khan, framed charges for offences under Sections 8/20/29 and 60 of the NDPS Act against the petitioner and co-accused Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah and Ghulam Nabi Lone. Vide a separate order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the learned trial court, which is also impugned in one of these petitions, the bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of framing of charge as also the order whereby his bail application has been rejected, on the grounds that no recovery has been effected from his possession and that the only material connecting him with the alleged crime, is his confessional statement. According to the petitioner the confessional statements of other accused made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act before the officials of the NCB are not admissible in evidence. It has been contended that even the call detail records, without there being any voice record, cannot connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. It has also been contended that while conducting the search of the car in which the accused were travelling, provisions contained in Section 42 of the NDPS Act, have not been adhered to. 7. The respondent-NCB has filed its reply to the petitions, in which after narrating the facts recorded in the complaint filed against the petitioner and the co-accused, it has been contended that the learned trial court has elaborately considered the material on record, whereafter it has been held that there is material against the petitioner on the basis of which, charges are required to be framed against him. It has been further contended that in the instant case, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence under NDPS Act and as such, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail because he is involved in an offence relating to possession of commercial quantity of contraband. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of his own confessional statement and the confessional statements of the co-accused made before the NCB officials, which are not admissible in evidence, as such, no case is made out for framing of charge against him. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in cases of Aejaz Ismail Sayed vs. Union of India and Anr., 2021 (4) JKJ [HC] 292, Mohd Ashraf Sheikh vs. UT of J&K, 2022 (1)JKJ [HC] 32, Gh Mohd Bhat vs. Narcotics Control Bureau , 2022 (4) JKJ [HC]57 and Mohd Anayat vs. UT of J&K, 2022 (3) JKJ [HC) (1). 10. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that a confessional statement of an accused is not admissible in evidence against a co-accused, nor a confessional statement of an accused, which is not recorded in accordance with the procedure contained in Section 164 of the Cr. P.C, is admissible in evidence. This Court has settled this position of law in the judgment titled, Rayees Ahmad Dar vs. UT of J&K and ors. (Bail App No. 5/2022) decided on 21.05.2022. Thus, the confessional statement of the petitioner made by him before the officials of the NCB is not admissible in evidence. Similarly, the confessional statements of co-accused implicating the petitioner are also not admissible in evidence as against the petitioner. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , has clearly held that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act before the officials of NCB will remain inadmissible in evidence in respect of trial of an offence under NDPS Act. Therefore, the petitioner is right in submitting that neither his confessional statement nor the confessional statements of the co-accused can be read against him so far as the present case is concerned. 12. However, besides the confessional statements of the petitioner and co-accused, we had on record the evidence to show that the petitioner was travelling in the private vehicle alongwith the co-accused and inside the said private vehicle, commercial quantity of contraband i.e. charas was recovered. 12. However, besides the confessional statements of the petitioner and co-accused, we had on record the evidence to show that the petitioner was travelling in the private vehicle alongwith the co-accused and inside the said private vehicle, commercial quantity of contraband i.e. charas was recovered. There is material on record to establish presence of the petitioner alongwith co-accused in a private vehicle and there are also call detail records of the mobile phone that was in use of the petitioner, which show that he was in constant touch with the main accused around the period when the occurrence took place. The call detail records, that have been collected by the investigating agency, show that the petitioner was in constant touch with main accused, namely, Ghulam Mohiud din Shah during the relevant time and they exchanged a large numbers of calls during that period. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has been implicated in the alleged crime only on the basis of his confessional statement or the confessional statements of the co-accused. 13. In the instant case, besides there being recovery of contraband from inside the private vehicle, in which the petitioner was travelling alongwith the co-accused, there are other circumstances, that include communications between the petitioner and the main accused. It is not a case where the petitioner was travelling in a public transport vehicle and as such, he had no knowledge about what was being carried in the vehicle, but it is a case where the petitioner was travelling in a private vehicle from which the charas was recovered and he was in constant touch with the main accused even prior to boarding the said vehicle. Thus, there is enough material before the trial court to hold that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 14. It is a settled law that while considering a case for charge or discharge of an accused, the Court is not required to enter into deeper appreciation of the facts. The evidence and the material available before the trial court is not to be scanned and evaluated in the manner as if the court has to find whether the accused has committed the offence or he is innocent. The evidence and the material available before the trial court is not to be scanned and evaluated in the manner as if the court has to find whether the accused has committed the offence or he is innocent. At the stage of framing of charge, the court has only to consider the material for framing opinion as to whether prima facie offence is committed which would require the accused to be put on trial. A strong suspicion is enough to suggest commission of offence by an accused. At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to merely sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. A meticulous examination of the record, in order to find whether the accused can be held guilty on the basis of the said material, is not to be undertaken. 15. In view of the afore-noted settled principle of law, it can safely be stated that there is sufficient material on record of the complaint to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. The trial court was, therefore, justified in framing the charge against the petitioner and putting him to trial. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act were not adhered to by the respondent at the time of search and seizure of the vehicle, in which the petitioner was travelling, cannot be gone into at the time of framing of the charge. Having regard to the limited jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with an order of framing of charge and in the absence of any grave illegality or perversity in the order framing charge against the petitioner, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with impugned order dated 04.03.2023. 16. That takes us to the application of the petitioner seeking bail. Since the order of framing charge for commission of offences under Sections 8/20/29 and 60 of NDPS Act passed by the learned trial court has been upheld, it is to be presumed that the petitioner has been prima facie found to be involved in the conspiracy relating to possession of commercial quantity of contraband. Thus, the petitioner is deemed to have committed the same offence as has been committed by the co-accused. Thus, the petitioner is deemed to have committed the same offence as has been committed by the co-accused. Therefore, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would get attracted to the case of the petitioner as well. 17. Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly provides that in cases involving offences relating to possession of commercial quantity of contraband substances, in addition to the restrictions imposed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, certain other conditions have been imposed on the power of the Court to grant bail. These conditions include a prior notice to be issued to the Public Prosecutor so as to give him an opportunity to oppose the bail application. Further, for granting bail to the accused, the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person seeking bail is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 18. The term “reasonable grounds” appearing in Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been interpreted to mean that the Court has to be satisfied that there are credible and plausible grounds for believing that the accused is not involved in the offence. 19. The Supreme Court has recently in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 Live Law (SC) 613, after relying upon its earlier judgments on the subject, observed as under: “14. To sum up, the expression “reasonable grounds” used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. 15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. 15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail.” 20. Applying the afore-quoted law analysed by the Supreme Court to the facts of the instant case and having regard to the material on record, it cannot be stated that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence, for which, he has been charged. The petitioner is, as such, not entitled to grant of bail at this stage. 21. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in both these petitions. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.