JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. DRI/UZU/JRU/19/INI-4/2016 dated 26.04.2017 of Police Station Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 23(c), 25-A, 27-A, 29 read with Section 2, 8 and 8-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Rules 53-A, 64-A, 65-A, 66 and 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only because of the fact that he is the real son of the main accused Subhash Dudhani. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce reliable evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner was involved in the commission of crime in any manner.

3. It is also submitted that the Investigating Agency has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner on the basis of statement of one of the witness viz. Rai Singh, who was the watchman of one of the factory. It is submitted that the said witness, during his interrogation by the Investigating Agency, has stated that the petitioner used to visit in the factory, where the tablets containing narcotic substance were manufactured. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that another piece of evidence available on record against the petitioner is his confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the Investigating Agency, without having any evidence against the petitioner, has involved him in commission of crime simply on the basis of that he used to handle the business of his father Subhash Dudhani in India as well as in Abroad.

4. It is further submitted that watchman Rai Singh has now been examined before the trial court as PW-16, however, he has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an accused in the NDPS case cannot be convicted simply on the basis of his confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act without there being other corroborative evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2017 and as such he is suffering incarceration for last more than four and half years. It is further submitted that as per the list of witnesses produced by the prosecution, there are total 96 prosecution witnesses, however, out of those only 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - UOI through DRI has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that from the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, it is clear that the petitioner was one of the active participant in the commission of crime. It is also submitted that the huge quantity of tablets containing narcotic substance above commercial quantity were manufactured in the factory viz. M/s. Shrinath Industries situated at Udaipur. It is further submitted that the principle accused Subhash Dudhani was instrumental in manufacturing the said tablets containing narcotic substance with the aid of his family members. It is also submitted that the petitioner is the active participant in the business dealing and he was very well aware about the fact that his father is dealing in importing tablets containing narcotic substance as he was handling the business dealing on behalf of his father in India as well as in Abroad. It is further submitted that enough evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency to conclude that the petitioner was aware about the