ORDER :

1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR registered as C.R. No.I11210015200082 of 2020 with SURAT DCB POLICE STATION, DISTRICTSURAT, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(c), 29 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that now the investigation is concluded and chargesheet is filed and the entire evidence is in custody of the Investigating Officer and therefore, no purpose will be served to continue the applicant in custody. Moreover, it is also submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 1st October, 2020. The trial is not likely to conclude in near future and on this ground alone, the applicant is required to be enlarged on regular bail.

4. It is submitted that the applicant is not having any past antecedents and in fact, the prohibited Narcotic substance was never recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant and therefore, only evidence available against the applicant is the statement of co-accused.

5. It is submitted that from the investigation papers, there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the other accused more particularly accused no.1 from whom the prohibited drugs were recovered and the allegations is that the said accused no.1 has received the prohibited drugs from the Drug Peddlers of Vapi and Mumbai. Name of the applicant being disclosed by the accused no.1 is also in doubtful manner because as reflected in the FIR, the applicant is referred as first name only by the accused no.1 who is stated that the accused no.1 had received contraband from the present applicant beyond that there is no other identification as even mobile number of the applicant was not disclosed by the accused no.1.

6. It is submitted that the applicant cannot be considered to be Dealer / Peddler of drug at the most, the applicant himself may be considered to be addict and was purchasing the same for the purpose of his own consumption. It is submitted that allegations against the applicant of transfer of money can only establish that the transfer of money only to the extent of Rs.3,41,000/and therefore, at the best, it can be case against the applicant, he had transferred the money to the accused no.1 to the aforesaid extent only for the purpose of purchasing the drugs for his own consumption and that to for intermediate quantity. Therefore, considering the sentence the applicant may also to be enlarged on regular bail.

7. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant lastly submitted that the prosecution has faulted by considering the entire contraband substance and holding the applicant along with co-accused to be responsible for the entire substance, if the case of the applicant is considered then, even from the quantity attributed to the accused no.1 being 34 gms, Section37 of the NDPS Act cannot be attracted. Therefore, in absence of rigour, the Court may consider the case by applying the requirement of the Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has referred to several cases wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court in the offence under the provisions of NDPS Act has considered the case for the grant of bail.

9. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has also drawn attention of this Court to the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Aryan Shah Rukh Khan Vs. The Union Of India & ANR. passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 3624 OF 2021 dated 28-10-2021, where considering the provision of NDPS Act, bail has been granted to the accused. Reliance is placed particularly on Para14 and para15 and equating the role of the applicant that the role of the accused in the case cited.

10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public