( 1 ) RULE. Mr. S. R. Divetia, waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of State of Gujarat. Hearing forthwith.

( 2 ) IN this application for cancellation of bail granted by Special Court, at ahmedabad, it is highlighted how lightly, liaberally and carelessly bail is granted in a strong, sound and serious cases against an accused involved in Drug Trafficking and Narcotic-Web having extent beyond the national frontiers (Mandrex Tablets in this case ).

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the original complainant who had filed a Criminal Complaint no. 162 of 1994 in the City Sessions Court, at Ahmedabad, on 23rd May 1994 against seven persons, in all, on the allegations that the accused persons have committed serious offences punishable under Secs. 22, 23, 24 and 29 of the Narcotic Durgs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("n. D. P. S. Act" for short) and also under secs. 120a and 120b of the Indian Penal Code ("i. P. C. " for short), has challenged the impugned order of grant of bail passed by the learned Additional City Sessions (Court No. 12) at Ahmedabad, on 16-1-1995, in Criminal Misc. Application no. 810 of 1994.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge (Special Court) has granted bail to the original accused no. 3-respondent No. 1, herein, on the following grounds on finding that :- (1) that there is no prima facie case against him; (2) that the Court has granted bail to three other accused persons; (3) that the accused is not likely to jump the bail, if granted; (4) that he is not likely to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution.

( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the applicant-original complainant has, forcefully, contended that the observations and the grounds on which the bail application is founded upon are unsustainable. According to his contention, there is a strong prima facie case against accused No. 3, as narcotic drugs in the form of Methequalone (Mandrex) tablets had been found from the godown rented and occupied by accused No. 3, and therefore, the recovery of narcotic drugs from the possession of accused No. 3 itself also is sufficient to hold that there is prima facie case against him, warranting pre-trial detention. As against that, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1-original accused No. 3 Arvind Shivlal Soni has supported the impugned order granting bail.

( 6 ) NO doubt, it may be noted that ordinarily discretion exercised by the trial court for grant or refusal of the bail, should not be disturbed. In the present case, there are special circumstances warranting interference of this Court, as the approach by the learned Special Judge, while granting bail to accused No. 3 in the case of serious charges is not only unreasonable, unjust but is perverse and illegal. The impugned order is based on following main four grounds which is not in dispute: (I) that the statement of accused under Sec. 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act is not voluntary; (ii) that the accused No. 3 could not be said to be a party in the conspiracy as alleged, as the principal offender-manufacturer of the Mandrex, Dr. Bipin Panchal was in jail; (iii) that the accused Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are granted bail, and therefore, accused No. 3 is also entitled to bail; and (iv) that no incriminating material was found from the house of the accused No. 3, when searched.

( 7 ) IN so far as first ground relating to statement under Sec. 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act of accused No. 3 is concerned, the observations made by the learned Special Judge, are unwarranted at the stage of bail application. It is found by him that the statement of accused No. 3 is not made voluntarily as he had immediately complained to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate about beating and bruises on his person. With due respect, he has neglected factual scenario and it is not appreciated correctly. Had there been any compulsion, coersion or force for giving statement as contended by accused No. 3, and as accepted by the learned Special Judge, then in that case, the