ORDER : M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1.This is an Application for regular bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . The Applicant is the 1 st accused in Crime No.1568 of 2024 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram, registered under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), which includes non-bailable offences. The Applicant was arrested on 19.08.2024. 2. The allegations against the Applicant are that the accused No.1/Applicant herein and accused No. 2 were found transporting 103.65 grams of MDMA in a Car bearing Reg. No. KL-07 CJ 9109. 3. On production before the jurisdictional Court, the Applicant was remanded to judicial custody. Though the Applicant filed B.A. No.717/2025 before this Court, the same was withdrawn, seeking liberty to move before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Applicant filed Crl. M.P. No.03/2025 & Crl. M.P. No.04/2025 in SC No.1540/2024 before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act cases, Manjeri and the same were dismissed as per Annexures A1 & A2 Orders, specifically referring to the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Sri. Kammappu. C.M. and the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri. C. S. Hrithwik. 5. The contentions of the learned counsel for the Applicant are that there are no criminal antecedents for the Applicant. Further, the Applicant is a manager of an aided school and is a reputed person in the locality. The car from which the drug was seized does not belong to him. He was trapped in the case. He has been remaining in custody since 19.08.2024. Since the Final Report has been filed, custody of the Applicant is not warranted. The rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act could not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel further submitted that the Applicant is ready to abide by any condition if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Application is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the grounds that commercial quantity is involved and there is nothing to dilute the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. 7. After hearing both sides, I find that the quantity of narcotic drug involved in the Crime is 103.65 grams, which is much more than the commercial quantity. 7. After hearing both sides, I find that the quantity of narcotic drug involved in the Crime is 103.65 grams, which is much more than the commercial quantity. The involvement of the Applicant is revealed in the investigation, and hence, the Final Report is submitted to the Court, including the Appli-cant as the accused. When commercial quantity is in- volved, the accused shall be released on bail only if the twin conditions mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are satisfied. As per Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the Court is to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is useful to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to the rigour of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari , (2007) 7 SCC 798 : “6. As the provision itself provides that no person shall be granted bail unless the two conditions are satisfied. They are; the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both the conditions have to be satisfied. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. 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 the 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.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held in Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan , (2021) 10 SCC 100 as follows: “23. 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. Nawaz Khan , (2021) 10 SCC 100 as follows: “23. 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Union of India v. Ram Samujh , (1999) 9 SCC 429 as follows: “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. 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socioeconomic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa , (1990) 1 SCC 95 as follows: “24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa , (1990) 1 SCC 95 as follows: “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, the Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.” 11. Offences involving the business of narcotic drugs are more dangerous than murder cases when their impact on society is considered. It is the duty of the Court to keep the drug dealers and peddlers away from society. The purpose of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is to check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market. The Courts are more concerned about the future of the society than the liberty of the persons accused in NDPS cases. 12. There is nothing available on record for this Court to hold that the twin conditions mentioned in Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act are satisfied to grant bail to the Applicant. Lack of previous criminal antecedents, long detention, or reputation/status of the accused are not the grounds available to dilute the rigour of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Prosecution has found clear participation of the Applicant in the Crime, and hence the Final Report is filed. 13. In cases involving offences under the NDPS Act, apart from applying the rigour under Section 37(1)(b) (ii), the Court is bound to follow the general parameters under Section 483 of the BNSS . Even if Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act is eschewed, there are valid reasons to deny bail to the Applicant when the nature and gravity of allegations are considered. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss this Bail Application.