ORDER : J.SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking bail in S.C.No. 1 of 2024 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad at Nampaly (Crime No.NCB F.No.48/1/1/2022/NCB/SUB- Zone/Hyderabad), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 21(c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘NDPS Act’). 2. Heard Mr. Vikas Goutham, learned counsel, representing Ms.Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Venkat Kalyan, learned counsel, representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor Geneal of India, appearing for respondent-State. 3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 19.01.2022, the Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad Sub Zone Officers, on information that a parcel bearing tracking ID No.IZ0559A50464193529, which was booked from Dubai through UPS Courier service, destined to Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh and presently lying at UPS Courier Service, Hyderabad, proceeded to the UPS Express Private Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad and seized a parcel having address of Consignor i.e., From Mohamed EI Amin Djekrif, Dubai and consignee address i.e., shop to Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh and on opening the said parcel, the officers found the suspected powder of 690 grams, which is a narcotic drug of Heroin. Thereafter, the Narcotics Control Bureau (for short ‘NCB’) officers along with independent witnesses reached Vijayawada on 21.01.2022 and took the parcel for delivery to the address i.e. 23-15-50, GS Raju Road, SN Puram, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, which is the house address of the accused, where the independent witnesses delivered the said parcel to A1, who collected the said parcel. Thereafter, the NCB officers enquired about the said parcel with A1, A1 informed that the said parcel is to be delivered in Delhi to one person as per the directions received vide Whatsapp call of mobile number +27 73 292 2554 belongs to his friend from South Africa. Hence, the accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 4. Hence, the accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and he did not commit any offence, as alleged against him, and he was falsely implicated as accused No.1 in this crime basing upon the confessional statement given by accused No.2 only, even without recording the statement of the petitioner as required under Section 67 of the Act. The confessional statement is inadmissible piece of evidence. 5. He further submitted that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and his statement was also not recorded by the NCB officers till filing of the complaint before the trial Court and there is no transcript between the petitioner and co-accused and also there is no whatsapp chat between the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on 22.01.2022 in another case and he was produced in this case before the trial Court on execution of P.T. warrant. He is now lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi. However, the passport of the petitioner was already deposited with the police and there is no chance for the petitioner to flee away from the trial of the case. This Court granted bail to the other accused vide order dated 25.04.2022 in Criminal Petition No.2661 of 2022. Hence the petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail. 6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following orders passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; i) Phundreimayum Yas Khan v. State (GNCT of Delhi) (Bail Application No.1383 of 2022, dated 11.01.2023); ii) Kingsley Ofobike vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (Bail Application No.2468 of 2022, dated 12.07.2023). 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the petitioner has committed grave offence, which is punishable under the NDPS Act and the contraband seized in this case is a commercial quantity and that the petitioner also involved in similar offences and he is accused in three cases. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 8. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that on 19.01.2022 the NCB Officers basing upon the information that a parcel bearing tracking ID No.IZ0559A50464193529, which was booked from Dubai through UPS Courier service, destined to Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. The record further reveals that the respondent filed complaint against the petitioner and other accused, wherein it is specifically stated that 690 grams of Heroin was seized, which is a commercial quantity. In the above complaint, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that he committed the said offence. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which 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 thereof, Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that offences involving commercial quantities be non-bailable, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. The orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner is involved in similar nature of offences. 10. The orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner is involved in similar nature of offences. 10. In respect of the other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court granted bail to accused No.2, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for bail, is concerned, this Court mainly taking into consideration of his age along with other grounds, granted bail to accused No.2 and basing upon the same, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for grant of bail. 11. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintlunga Sailo and another , 2024 INSC 537 , held that: “6. While considering the cases under NDPS Act, one cannot be oblivious of the objects and reasons for bringing the said enactment after repealing the then existing laws relating to the Narcotic drugs. The object and reasons given in the act itself reads thus: - “An act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to provide for the forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to implement the provisions of the International Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith." In the decision in Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 , the three judge bench of this Court considered the provisions under Section 37(1)(b) as also 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, with regard to the expression “reasonable grounds” used therein. This Court held that it means something more than the prima facie grounds and that it contemplates substantial and probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held that the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision would require existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held that the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision would require existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. As relates the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, viz., that, firstly, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and, secondly, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail it was held therein that they are cumulative and not alternative. Satisfaction of existence of those twin conditions had to be based on the ‘reasonable grounds’, as referred above. 7. In the decision in State of Kerala and Ors. v. Rajesh and Ors ., (2020)12 SCC 122 , after reiterating the broad parameters laid down by this Court to be followed while considering an application for bail moved by an accused involved in offences under the NDPS Act, in paragraph 18 thereof this Court held that the scheme of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would reveal that the exercise of power to grant bail in such cases is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii), NDPS Act. Further it was held that in case one of the two conditions there under is not satisfied the ban for granting bail would operate.” 12. In the above said case, the accused is involved in offences under Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, more than one occasion and when the quantity of the contraband substance viz., heroin is 1.040 kgs, much above the commercial quantity, then the non-consideration of the provisions under Section 37 of NDPS Act has to be taken as a very serious lapse. Further the accused in the said case was a HIV patient. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not considered the bail application, in view of the rigour there under. 13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequal thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.