The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, as prescribed by Section 37, and the court's need to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit a similar offense while on bail.

ORDER

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') on behalf of the petitioner praying for regular bail in FIR No. 67/2021 registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences punishable under Section 20/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act').

2. Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated that the petitioner is an innocent, law-abiding citizen who has no criminal antecedents and is not a previous convict. It has also been submitted that there is no public witness to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not indulged in any illegal activity like cultivating, producing, manufacturing, selling, purchasing, possessing, ware housing, transporting, using, consuming etc. of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, hence no offence under the NDPS Act is made out against him. It has also been submitted that there are several precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling that bail is a matter of rule and denial is the exception. It has further been submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court and is ready to furnish sufficient bail bond.

3. Per contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and laid out the facts of the case as under:

a. Upon receiving a secret information in the afternoon of 21st April 2021 that two suppliers of Ganja (Cannabis) namely - Sajid and Nasir would be delivering the contraband to a person at Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi between 2 to 3 pm, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 06 dated 21st April 2021 at SIU-I, Crime Branch, and in compliance with the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act, ASI Rajbir Singh along with a team conducted a raid by laying trap and apprehended Nasir and Sajid upon being identified by the informer.

b. Subsequently, they were served notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding their personal search and the search of their vehicle. From the truck bearing no. UP 15 CT 9536 that they were driving, a total of seven gunny bags carrying 315 kg of Cannabis, i.e. a commercial quantity, was recovered.

c. Accordingly, a case vide FIR No. 67/2021 dated 21st April 2021 under Section 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act was registered at Crime Branch.

d. In the course of investigation, during interrogation the accused had categorically disclosed that they were handed over the aforesaid consignment of Cannabis (Ganja) at Rajahmundry (Andhra Pradesh) by one Parvez with the instructions to deliver the same to one Parmod and some other parties, who would be meeting them at Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi. It was also told to them by Parvez that as & when they reached Delhi, he will connect them to the consignee Parmod and others for safe delivery.

e. Further, as per the investigation, Parmod was in regular touch with accused Parvez and had visited Rajahmundry in the month of April to finalize the quality of cannabis and finalize the deal. The charge-sheet in the instant case was filed before the concerned court under Section 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act after completion of the investigation. The said case is pending trial before the Special Judge, NDPS, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

4. Learned APP for the State further drew attention of the Court to the Status Report filed by the State wherein reiterating the facts of investigation, it has strongly objected to the bail application filed by the petitioner on the grounds summarised as under:

a. Source of accused Pravez is still absconding and avoiding his arrest. Non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused Pravez. Since, surveillance is on, the present accused could help the absconding accused.

b. Further since the contraband recovered is of commercial quan