JUDGMENT : 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.11210050231274 of 2023 registered with the Rander Police Station, Surat of the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, may be summarized as under; 3.1 On 22.09.2023, the complainant Shri Samatsinh Narsinh, Head Constable, Buckle No.3027, S.O.G., Surat City has filed the present complaint stating that while he was present at the Sagrampura SOG Field Office, at that time, Head Constable Yogeshbhai Kansarabhai, Buckle No.3152, informed them about the tip-off received by him that one Jatin @ Jaggu Girishbhai Bhagat, a resident of Rander Surat, has brought the cache of hashish (Charas) from somewhere and has been indulged in trafficking of the same and even today, at around 4:00 to 5:00 O’clock in the afternoon, he will go to Kirtinagar by passing through the Laxmi Dairy street situated opposite Roopali Cinema, Rander-Palanpur Patiya Road carrying one yellow bag, which information was then reduced into writing and handed over to the concerned superior officer who, in turn, forwarded the same to the Police Commissioner Rajdipsinh. After that, as the raid had to be carried out at such place, Panchas were also called for. 3.2 Thereafter, after following all necessary procedure of raid and drawing panchnamas, all the members of the raiding party reached at the pointed place at around 16:00 hours and scattered at different places of the street in a way that they can keep a watch of the movement of the people coming from both the sides of the street by disguising themselves. 3.3 Thereafter, after 45 minutes, the person as described in the secret information, was seen passing through the said street carrying the yellow bag, who was cordoned by the police at 16:56 hours near Sejal Complex and then arrested. After that, the superior officer introduced himself to the said person, and upon asking his identity, he identified himself as Jaggu S/o Girishbhai Bhagat, aged about 26, a resident of Rander, Surat. After that, the superior officer introduced himself to the said person, and upon asking his identity, he identified himself as Jaggu S/o Girishbhai Bhagat, aged about 26, a resident of Rander, Surat. Thereafter, as it was difficult to go ahead with the further procedure at such a public place, the said person was taken to the office situated in the parking of the ‘D’ Block of Sejal Complex where the further procedure was being carried out. 3.4 Thereafter, the said person got acquainted about the secret information. After that, requisite procedure under Sections 43 and 50 of the NDPS Act was also followed. Personal search of the accused person was also made, however, nothing objectionable was found upon his personal search. After that, the yellow coloured bag which the accused was carrying was also being searched from where two red coloured plastic pouches were found. When both the pouches were slightly opened from the corner side in the presence of the Panchas, a suspicious brown coloured solid substance was found to be there in both the pouches having pungent smell. Thereafter, when the accused was asked about the said suspicious narcotic substance, he admitted it to be the contraband substance hashish (Charas). 3.5 Thereafter, samples were taken and the officers of the FSL were also called for and upon testing with the drug detection kit, the samples tested positive for cannabis (Charas). When such contraband substance Charas recovered from the accused was weighed with the weighing scale, the same was found to be 2 KG and 173 Grams. Hence, the present FIR. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah appearing for the applicant has submitted that the so-called incident has occurred in the evening of 22.09.2023, for which, FIR has been lodged on the very same day i.e. on 22.09.2023 and in connection with the same, the applicant has been arrested on 22.09.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that the FIR has been lodged against three accused persons, wherein the applicant is shown as accused no.1. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that the FIR has been lodged against three accused persons, wherein the applicant is shown as accused no.1. It is also submitted that the allegations are to the effect that on the basis of the secret information received by the members of the raiding party, they carried out a raid at the given place and caught the applicant-accused along with the contraband substance lying in the bag carried by him, however, the fact is that the applicant-accused is actually residing in the vicinity from where he was caught by the police and indulged in the business of buying and selling the vehicles. It is further submitted that the prosecuting agency has not cited any independent or public witness to substantiate the allegations levelled against the applicant-accused despite the fact that the incident in question alleged to have been occurred at a public place. The entire case of the prosecution rests solely on the testimonies of the police officials and there are certain material contradictions in their testimonies. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further submitted that the only role attributed to the applicant-accused is that the other co-accused contacted him for selling out the contraband substance Charas in the market which they found from the seashore of Hajira port and concealed the same at the backside of the house of the accused No.2. However, nothing has been produced on record to establish any link or connection between the applicant-accused and the other co-accused. 5. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Shah prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and the applicant-accused be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the body of the complaint. It is submitted that in the present case, contraband article Charas weighing around 8.319 Kg, worth of Rs.4,15,95,000/- have been recovered, which is commercial quantity and, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi submits that the applicant is involved in serious offence, which may affect life of other persons. It is submitted that in the present case, contraband article Charas weighing around 8.319 Kg, worth of Rs.4,15,95,000/- have been recovered, which is commercial quantity and, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi submits that the applicant is involved in serious offence, which may affect life of other persons. It is also submitted that the applicant was in constant touch with other co-accused and the said fact is substantiated from the CDR collected by the Investigator during the course of investigation. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi further submits that from the charge-sheet papers, the involvement of the present applicant–accused is clearly established and, hence, the present bail application may not be entertained. In short, the total quantity of the narcotic substance Charas recovered in the present case is a very huge commercial quantity and, therefore, considering the quantum of the contraband substance as well as the role attributed to the applicant- accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant- accused. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and perused the records of this case. 8. 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 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.” 9. 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; and 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. 10. 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. 11. The contours of Section 37 of the Act have been analysed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. 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. 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. 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 v. Chief Secy., 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." 12. 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." 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 v. 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. 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". 15. 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. 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. 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. 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." 17. 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. Thus, to not give any leeway to the accused, the court has to be satisfied about the dual conditions on reasonable grounds. 18. 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 of Charas weighing 8.319 kgs. and, therefore, his bail application needs to be decided as per Section 37 of the Act. Total three persons have been arrested in the present case by the police. It appears that on the basis of the inputs received by the police, the applicant-accused was caught red- handed by the police. and, therefore, his bail application needs to be decided as per Section 37 of the Act. Total three persons have been arrested in the present case by the police. It appears that on the basis of the inputs received by the police, the applicant-accused was caught red- handed by the police. It also appears from the police papers that when the accused Nos.2 and 3, namely, Pinkesh @ Pinko Shantilal Patel and Abhishek @ Abhi along with some other friends went for party at the seashore of Hajira Port, they found some parcels containing contraband Charas which reached at the seashore floating in the water. Thereafter, knowing fully well that the same is a prohibited substance, they took the contraband substance with them and buried in the wilds situated at the backside of the house of the accused No.2, which was subsequently tried to be sold out by them with the help of the present applicant-accused. The total quantity of the contraband substance recovered in the present case is 8.319 kgs, of which, 2.173 kgs was given to the accused No.1-Jatin @ Jaggu, i.e, the present applicant to sell it out and 6.146 kg was found from the backside of the house of the applicant-accused. As per the police papers, there were in all total four packets were given to the present applicant- accused, out of which, two packets have already been seized by the police and two packets are still untraceable and, therefore, there are all possible chances that the applicant-accused may dispose of those two untraceable packets, if released on bail. All requisite procedures had also been followed as per the law and, thereafter, the accused persons came to be arrested. Simultaneously, 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 thus considering the role played by the applicant in the present 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. 19. Proceeding to the application of Section 37 in the instant matter, the Public Prosecutor has been heard who has vehemently opposed the bail application with reasons. 19. Proceeding to the application of Section 37 in the instant matter, the Public Prosecutor has been heard who has vehemently opposed the bail application with reasons. With respect to the second condition prescribed thereunder, this Court is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds, based on the analysis of the provision in the foregoing paragraphs and its application to the facts of the case, for this Court to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the offence that he has been charged with. Since this court is not satisfied on this ground, there is no question to consider that the accused will not commit the offence while on bail. 20. In view of the aforementioned facts, circumstances, analysis and reasoning, keeping in mind the legal provisions and the underlying intent as well as the mischief that is sought to be curbed by the NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered view that the conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the Act are not satisfied and there are no “reasonable grounds’ to presume the accused as not being guilty of the offence. Thus, this Court is not inclined to allow the instant bail application as being devoid of any merit and hence, liable to be rejected. 21. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.