( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate Mr. A. Y. Pathan on behalf of the petitioner. Learned A. P. P. Mr. Kodekar appearing on behalf of respondent and learned Advocate Mr. Anant Dave appearing on behalf of narcotics Control Bureau. Against the present petitioner offence registered under sees. 8c, 20b and 29 of N. D. P. S. Act, 1985. Charge-sheet filed against the present petitioner on 20-11-2002. After filing the charge-sheet on 20-11-2002 the first application for bail filed by the petitioner on 22-3-2004 in N. D. P. S. Case No. 1 of 2003 by Misc. Criminal Application No. 53 of 2004. The said application rejected by Special Judge, Navsari on 1-4-2004 against which present application is filed by petitioner.

( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Pathan raised contention before this Court that nothing recovered from the present petitioner. Only statement of accused No. 1-Mohd. Ramzan Kalyari @ Ramzanbhai involved the present petitioner and on that basis the complaint is filed against the petitioner. He submitted that the statement of accused No. 1-Mohd. Ramzan not admissible in evidence and relying on that statement complaint was filed against the petitioner. He disputed that phone No. 431671 at Baroda is not a telephone number of residence of the petitioner. He produced the bill of the said telephone number wherein the name of Abdul Kadar G. Mansuri is mentioned. Therefore, his submission is that prima facie petitioner was not involved at all in the said transaction and allegations made against the petitioner are false. He also submitted that in past transaction of 27 kg. charas delivered at Bharuch to the petitioner is also false because from 26-4-2002 to 30-4-2002 the entire Baroda city was in disturbance and it was not possible for the petitioner to go out of the city as heavy police force was controlling the city. Therefore, that allegation was also false and prima facie involvement of petitioner is not proved on the face of it that he received delivery at Bharuch of 27 kg. charas. He also submitted that long medical history suffering with heart trouble and angiography and for that petitioner was released on temporary bail for a period of one month by the court. During this one month period he was in good behavior and not jumped the jail. He further emphasized that in present incident petitioner was not at all involved. These are the prima facie submission with a prayer to grant regular bail in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that trial is still not commenced on the contrary the matter is transferred to the other Judge. Except that no other submission made by Mr. Pathan and no decision is relied by Mr. Pathan.

( 3 ) LEARNED A. P. P. Mr. Kodekar appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that offence registered against the petitioner under the provisions of n. D. P. S. Act, 1985 and Sec. 37 which is mandatory is applicable to the facts of this case. He has submitted that in such cases to grant bail is a exception otherwise bail should not be granted to the accused against whom the offence registered under the provisions of N. D. P. S. Act, 1985.

( 4 ) LEARNED A. P. P. Mr. Kodekar submitted that accused himself has given statement in his own hand-writing under Sec. 67 of N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 which is as good a statement under Sec. 108 of Customs Act. He also submitted that this statement is admissible in evidence and that statement is produced at page 16 and completed at page 19. Mr. Kodekar also emphasized that in entire statement present petitioner admitted clear involvement in the present transaction and that itself is sufficient at the stage of deciding the bail application to prove prima facie case against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the statement given by petitioner voluntarily in involving in the present transaction is as under :"on being asked he further stated that Ramzanbhai called him some 5-6 days back from Kashmir; at that time he was not present at his residence; that when he