ORDER :

Mohammad Nawaz, J.

1. This petition is filed by accused No. 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in a case bearing reference NCB. F. NO. 48/1/14/2020/BZU, registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, for offences punishable under Sections 8 r/w 22, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for short].

2. I have heard the learned senior counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

3. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that, on receiving a credible information, the officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau, between 21st and 23rd August, 2020, recovered a total quantity of 211.06 gms. of MDMA pills from accused Nos. 1 to 3 and recorded their voluntary statements. The Intelligence Officer issued summons to the petitioner herein under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to appear before him on 20.10.2020, for an enquiry in connection with the alleged drug trafficking and seizure of contraband articles from the possession of accused Nos. 1 to 3. The same day on his appearance, his statement was recorded, wherein it is alleged that he confessed to have procured the contraband drug from accused No. 1 for the purpose of consumption and accordingly, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

4. The accused/petitioner approached the Sessions Court to enlarge him on bail in Crl. Misc. No. 6660/2020, which came to be rejected vide Order dated 18.11.2020.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner would vehemently contend that on receiving the summons issued to him by the Intelligence Officer, the petitioner has appeared before him for the purpose of an enquiry and on the very same day he was arrested on the ground that he has committed an offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 27 of the NDPS Act. The maximum punishment prescribed for an offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act is not more than one year. It is contended that the alleged statement said to have been recorded cannot be considered as a confessional statement as it was recorded for the purpose of an enquiry. Even otherwise, the said statement cannot be used as a basis to deny bail to the petitioner. It is further contended that from the possession of the petitioner herein there is no contraband article seized and the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the statements of co-accused viz., accused Nos. 1 to 3 and therefore, she has contended that there is nothing on record to substantiate the role of the petitioner in any of the alleged offences and the bar created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Hon'ble Court and he will abide by any reasonable conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, seeks to allow the petition.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent having filed statement of objections has vehemently contended that initially accused No. 2 by name Mohd. Anoop was arrested and from his possession 60 gms. of MDMA pills, cash and several other documents have been seized. Thereafter other accused are arrested and a total quantity of 211.06 gms. of MMDA pills are seized from accused Nos. 1 to 3 which is a commercial quantity. He contends that as per the disclosure made by the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, they have admitted their respective role in the drug trafficking and on further investigation it has come to light that the petitioner herein was in constant touch with accused No. 1 in relation to drug trafficking. Hence, he was summoned under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and he has confessed that he was a regular buyer of MDMA crystals from accused No. 1-Anikha D. He contends that the petitioner has been purchasing the drugs from accused No. 1 an