ORDER : Hasmukh D. Suthar, J. 1) RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 2) The present successive bail application is filed under Section 483 of the bharatiya nyaya suraksha sanhita, 2023 (for short “bnss”) for regular bail in connection with fir being c.r. No.11192050210302 of 2021 registered with Sanand Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad Rural, for the offence under Sections 8 (c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2.1) At the outset, It is worth to mention that though Hon’ble Supreme Court has given specific direction in the case of Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Orissa, Cr.A. No.303/2024 on 19.01.2024 , more particularly in para 20, that it is mandatory to mention in the application filed for grant of bail, details and copies of the earlier orders passed in the earlier bail applications which have already been decided is required to be mentioned and annexed. On top of the bail application, it is to be shown/mentioned for the convenience of the Court. However, in the present application, the applicant has neither mentioned the fact that a bail application was previously filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, nor has he annexed the order passed therein. 3) The applicant had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 17302/2024 for regular bail before this Court, which came to be dismissed by assigning reasoned order. The said order was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by preferring Criminal Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 4075/2025 which also came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.03.2025 , wherein it has been observed as under:- “1. Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 18-12-2024 in R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail – After Chargesheet) No.17302/2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, titled “Dipakbhai Satyanarayan Somani vs. State of Gujarat”. 2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present Special Leave Petition 3. Permission granted. 4. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” Thereafter, without any change in the circumstances, the present successive bail application has been filed on the ground of delay. 4) The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons named in the FIR got caught red-handed with 154 kg 562 gram of contraband (Ganja) worth Rs.15,45,620/-. In this regard, the FIR came to be filed. 4) The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons named in the FIR got caught red-handed with 154 kg 562 gram of contraband (Ganja) worth Rs.15,45,620/-. In this regard, the FIR came to be filed. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed, wherein the present applicant is shown as accused No.3. The charge-sheet has culminated into Special NDPS Case No.22 of 2021 which is pending. 5) Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. There are approx. 30 witnesses and therefore, no possibility to conclude the trial in near future. It is also submitted that, he was neither in exclusive physical possession of the contraband nor involved in financing or direct trafficking. No any money trail was found showing any financial gain. He has no past antecedent of similar type of offence. 6) It is further submitted that, he is behind bar since 15.06.2021 and trial is delayed and due to this reason, he has filed present successive bail application on the ground of delay. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant. Further, he has submitted that yet the trial has not commenced and he has mainly argued that though charge-sheet is filed in December, 2021, the trial is not progressing and therefore, he is seeking bail for applicant on the ground of delay in trial as no offence as alleged is made out against the present applicant. 7) Learned APP has opposed the present application and submitted that, this is a successive bail application filed without change in the circumstances. Delay is not attributed on the part of the prosecution but with systematic plan of the co-accused, more particularly when the accused was released on interim bail, he remained absconder for longer time and thereafter, other co-accused also remained absconding and one after another accused sought an adjournment before the trial Court and in collusion and connivance with each other, they are prolonged the delay. Now the accused is making hue and cry on the ground of delay and asking bail on the ground of delay. Even today also, co-accused are absconder and against them, proceedings under Section 283 and 284 of BNSS came to be issued. Now the accused is making hue and cry on the ground of delay and asking bail on the ground of delay. Even today also, co-accused are absconder and against them, proceedings under Section 283 and 284 of BNSS came to be issued. 8) Learned APP has also submitted that huge commercial quantity of Ganja i.e. 154 kg and 562 gram is recovered from the accused persons and hence, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable in the present case. Further, the applicant is having past antecedent against him under Section 37 6 of IPC/POCSO Act and even, co-accused namely Amitbhai Vanrajsinh Vaghela, Parasmal Narayanlal Gajjar are still absconding and co-accused Govind Satyanarayan Joshi is recently arrested and therefore, investigation qua absconding co-accused is still pending. Further, when the applicant was released on temporary bail for 10 days by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2022, the applicant remained absconding and was apprehended by the Rajasthan Police after 593 days. Therefore, he cannot ask for benefit of his wrong on the ground that the trial is delayed. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application. After refusal of regular bail by this Court, the applicant had approached the Supreme Court by way of preferring Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.4075/2025, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 24.03.2025. 9) Perusing the investigation papers and charge-sheet papers, it appears that at the instance of I/c. Police Inspector Shri N.L. Desai, SOG Branch, Ahmedabad Rural, an offence came to be registered on 15.06.2021 for offence under Sections 8 (C), 20(b) (ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act alleging that present applicant and absconding accused Amitbhai Vanrajsinh Vaghela and accused No.5 Raju Badarji Mali had brought huge quantity of Ganja from Rajasthan and hidden on the terrace of one room constructed in the field of one Hemubhai Bhagvanji Vaghela and based on such intelligence, the police party raided the said premises and on seeing the raiding party, when the accused persons tried to fled in four wheel car, they were caught red- handed alongwith the present applicant and in presence of government panch witnesses, search was carried out and from the conscious possession of present applicant and other accused persons, 154 kg and 562 gram of Ganja was recovered and in this regard the offence is registered. 10) The main argument of the learned advocate for the applicant is that applicant is behind the bar since 15.06.2021 and even after filing of charge-sheet way back in December, 2021, the trial is not progressing and therefore, on the ground of delay, he has asked to release him on bail. Herein, the accused is caught with 154 kg 562 gram of Ganja which is commercial quantity and therefore, present is a case of commercial quantity and hence, rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable, as the applicant is facing charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 11) In the case of Union of India v. Nawaz Khan reported in ( 2021 10 SCC 100 (3 Judges’ Bench), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the test which the High Court should adopt while granting bail, “reasonable grounds to believe”, “conscious possession” of contraband and principles for ascertaining the same have been summarized. Merely the contraband was not in conscious possession of present applicant does not absolve him of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The term “possession” could mean “physical possession” with animus; custody over the prohibited substances with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on such knowledge. Herein, applicant having the knowledge about accused No.2 and contraband was in second trolley bag and he was in constant touch and not only personal knowledge but the existence of contraband and the intention was safely inferred based on the said knowledge also. 12) Even, from the bare perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that present applicant is found in conscious possession of the contraband. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawaz Khan (Supra) , as the applicant is found in conscious possession of the contraband, his involvement is there and considering the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is very difficult to presume that if the applicant is released on bail, then he would not involve in commission of similar type of offence. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala etc. vs. Rajesh etc. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala etc. vs. Rajesh etc. reported in AIR 2020 SC 721 , wherein considering the provisions of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, it has been held that since the offence involves recovery of the narcotic drug in excess of its commercial quantity, the Court is required to record its satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and the Court is required to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for grant of bail to the accused under the NDPS Act. The contraband is found in the conscious possession of the present applicant based on intelligence. 13) A Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for. Section 37 of the NDPS Act starts with a non- obstante clause and therefore, the provisions of Section 437 /439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable with regard to a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity of contraband. The words "reasonable grounds" also appear in clause (i) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. but the authority given to a High Court or a Court of Session under clause (a) of Section 439 permitting release on bail of any person accused of an offence would be curtailed in view of the stringent provision of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The limitations prescribed under the NDPS Act on granting of bail are in addition to the limitations under Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. It is further contended that while considering an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. With reference to the phrase "reasonable grounds for believing". 14) Moreover, other aspect to be borne in mind is that the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. With reference to the phrase "reasonable grounds for believing". 14) Moreover, other aspect to be borne in mind is that the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings before the court 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. 15) The seriousness of cases under the NDPS Act have to be viewed like this 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 deadly impact on the society,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, the Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Special provisions under the Act. 16) The Court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. in the case of Babua v. State of Orissa , Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held that:- "3. In view of Section 37 (1)(b) of the Act unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail alone will entitle him to a bail. In the present case, the petitioner attempted to secure bail on various grounds but failed. But those reasons would be insignificant if we bear in mind the scope of Section 37 (1)(b) of the Act. At this stage of the case all that could be seen is whether the statements made on behalf of the prosecution witnesses, if believable, would result in conviction of the petitioner or not. At this juncture, we cannot say that the accused is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in the charge are established. Nor can we say that the evidence having not been completely adduced before the Court that there are no grounds to hold that he is not guilty of such offence. The other aspect to be borne in mind is that the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. The other aspect to be borne in mind is that the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings before the court, and the validity of Section 37 (1)(b) having been upheld, we cannot take any other view." Further, in the present case, the applicant is found in conscious possession of the contraband and therefore, considering the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1991 as well as in the case of State of Meghalaya vs. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751 and NCB Vs. Kashif , reported in 2024(11) SCC 372 , the applicant is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 17) Further, the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that though charge-sheet is filed in December, 2021, trial is at the stage of framing of charge and therefore, there is no likelihood of initiation of trial in near future and has sought bail on that ground. It is needless to say that as fairly submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant, till date the accused has not engaged an Advocate and due to non-cooperation of the accused trial is getting protracted and applicant is not entitled to take benefit of his own wrong and make hue and cry that, trial has got delayed. Though accused are approaching the Courts engaging private Advocates upto High Court time and again for filing bail applications, they are not willing to engage an Advocate for trial and on one or another pretext protracting the trial and then they ask for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and taking the benefit of their own wrong. Though accused are approaching the Courts engaging private Advocates upto High Court time and again for filing bail applications, they are not willing to engage an Advocate for trial and on one or another pretext protracting the trial and then they ask for bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and taking the benefit of their own wrong. In this event, learned Presiding Officers shall have to be conscious to scrupulously adhere to the time line for not only concluding the trial but to see that the trial is not delayed or protracted due to fault on the part of the accused, if the accused do not engage an Advocate then he shall be provided legal aid from the office of Chief Defence Counsel and in cases where there are more than one accused and some of the accused remain absconding then trial of such cases shall be separated and to proceed with the trial of cases in accordance with law where accused are available for trial by resorting to the provisions of sections 335 and 355(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 18) In the present case, there are only 30 witnesses (approx.) cited by the prosecution and prosecution is going to examine material witnesses and it will hardly take maximum 8 to 12 weeks’ time for the learned trial Court to conclude the trial. Considering the aforesaid fact, the argument canvassed on behalf of the applicant that due to protracted trial applicant has to suffer prolonged incarceration is not acceptable. It is also worth to mention that the bail application and criminal matters are required to be decided only based on peculiar facts of each case. 19) So far as argument made by learned counsel for the applicant qua delay is concerned, it is clearly elaborated by this Court in para 17 of this order. Even perused the detailed report of concerned jurisdictional Court who presided over the trial dated 19.09.2025 and after rejection of earlier bail application, without there being any change in the circumstances, present application is filed merely on the ground that there is delay in the trial, which in fact caused on the part of the accused. Even perused the detailed report of concerned jurisdictional Court who presided over the trial dated 19.09.2025 and after rejection of earlier bail application, without there being any change in the circumstances, present application is filed merely on the ground that there is delay in the trial, which in fact caused on the part of the accused. While dismissing the earlier bail application, specific observation and direction was given that the applicant shall be provided legal aid from the office of Chief Defence Counsel through the District Legal Services Authority and expedite the trial at the earliest, however the accused failed to engage an advocate and on one or other pretext, prolonging the trial. Contraband Ganja involved in the offence are of commercial quantity and the applicant remained absconder for quite long period. Even they are not produced from the jail through virtual mode and on one or other pretext, in absence of their advocate/s or by filing exemption applications by other co-accused also, they got prolonged the trial and able to kill the precious time of the Court. More than 8 months no one has right to take advantage of his own wrong. Here intentionally, the accused persons are prolonged the trial and now they are taking advantage of their own wrong and asked for bail merely on the ground of delay in the trial. Here the applicant any how wants to come out from rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 20) One more aspect which is required to be considered is that when the applicant was released on temporary bail for 10 days by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2022, the applicant remained absconding and was apprehended by the Rajasthan Police after 593 days and therefore, even looking to the conduct of the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that if the applicant is released on bail then the applicant may once again abscond and not stand to trial and/or indulge in similar illegal activity or may jump the bail. Further, as per the jail remarks also, co-accused namely Amitbhai Vanrajsinh Vaghela and Parasmal Narayanlal Gajjar are still absconding after being released on temporary bail and co-accused Govind Satyanarayan Joshi is recently arrested and therefore, investigation qua absconding accused is still pending and therefore also, possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out if the discretion is exercised in favor of the applicant even on the ground of delay as the delay is caused and attributable to the accused and he cannot take undue advantage of his own wrong. Further, person has no absolute right of liberty at the cost of societal interest, individual liberty cannot be ascertained to such an extent or elevated to such high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ankush Vipan Kapoor vs. Union of India & Another reported in 2024 INSC 986 wherein in paras 9.1 and 9.2 it is observed as under: “9.1 The ills of drug abuse seem to be shadowing the length and breadth of our country with the Central and every State Government fighting against the menace of substance abuse. The debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse is an immediate and serious concern for India. As the globe grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders (“SUD”) and an ever accessible drug market, the consequences leave a generational imprint on public health and even national security. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this predicament and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure that India’s younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace. This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property crime in a family. This is particularly because substance abuse is linked to social problems and can contribute to child maltreatment, spousal violence, and even property crime in a family. 9.2 Despite the efforts of the State, an unprecedented scale of coordination and profit seeking has sustained this menace so hard- hitting and multifaceted that it causes suffering cutting across age groups, communities, and regions. Worse than suffering and pain, is the endeavour to profit from it and use the proceeds thereof for the committing of other crimes against society and the State such as conspiracy against the State and funding terrorist activities. Profits from drug trafficking are increasingly used for funding terrorism and supporting violence.” 21) In view of the above, there being no merits in the present successive bail application and that too without any change in the circumstance, same is hereby dismissed . However, learned trial Court once again is directed to take appropriate recourse under Section 355 of BNSS including separate trial of present applicant from the other co-accused and to proceed with the trial on day to day basis. Further, learned APP has also given assurance if the applicant will cooperate with the trial, then the prosecution is ready and willing to examine all material witnesses and expedite the trial in time bound schedule. Rule is hereby discharged. 22) It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the case of the applicant on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the present order.