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 the complaint registered and numbered as N.D.P.S. Sessions Case No.14/2015 of the Court of City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in connection with offences under Sections 22, 9(A), 25(A), 29, 30 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substance) Order 2013 on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered vide F.No.NCB/AZU/CR02/ 2014 with Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad.

2. Learned 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 Advocate for the applicant submitted that acting on tip of Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad had apprehended one Mayur Trivedi along with the prohibited drugs and investigation of said Mayur Trivedi lead to revelation of the name of the applicant as supplier and had implicated the applicant in the statement under Section67 of the NDPS Act, which was recorded on 08032014 and identified the applicant in the name of Javed.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and cannot be arraigned as accused merely on the statement of co-accused namely Mayur Trivedi and that to when said Mayur Trivedi has referred to in his statement to one Javed of Delhi. It is submitted that from the applicant, no prohibited contraband has been recovered and the applicant was only found in the company with the co-accused Mayur Trivedi from whose possession contraband was found. It is submitted that from the investigation case papers, there is no evidence of any meeting of mind of the applicant with the other co-accused, so as to attract the allegation of having hatched the conspiracy to commit the offence. It is submitted that statement recorded under Section67 of the NDPS Act, has no value in the eyes of the law as in view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as there is no other evidence against the applicant and hence, he should be enlarged on regular bail.

5. Learned Advocate for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant is aged 53 years and he has been in custody since 2015 and as the trial is not likely to be completed within short period and hence, the applicant to be enlarged on regular bail.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the offence is of very serious nature involving huge quantity of Narcotic substance namely “Amphetamine”. Investigation papers reveals that the applicant was in constant touch with the co-accused Mayur Trivedi before immediate seizure took place at Ahmedabad. It is submitted that charge has already been framed and the witnesses are being examined and therefore, as the trial has commenced, the applicant may not be enlarged on regular bail.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that that over and above S.439 of Cr.P.C., provisions of S.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act will come into play. It has been categorically stated that accused of the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act should not be released on bail during the trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in S.37 viz. (i.) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and (ii.) That he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in reported at (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831 Union of India V/s. Ratan Mallik Alias Habul wherein at paragraph no.16 has clearly observed "merely because, according to the learned Judge, nothing was found from the possession of the respondent,