The court's decision was guided by the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the previous rejection of the first bail application.

ORDER

1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter and the petitioner is in custody since 12.06.2020.

2. The first bail application of the petitioner being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8085/2021 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2021, which reads as under:-

"1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 103/2020 Registered at Police Station Shrinagar District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Section 8 & 15 of NDPS Act.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that father and the wife of the petitioner have expired and the petitioner have small kids and there is no other person except him to look after his children. Counsel further submits that owner of the truck has already been released on bail. Counsel further submits that recovered contraband articles have been sent for FSL after a delay of six days. Counsel further submits that in this matter the Investigating agency has not complied with the provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that 240 kg ’Poppy Straw’ has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and coaccused person and the petitioner is having criminal antecedents.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh Etc. reported in (2020) 12 SCC 122 has held as under:-

’20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said Section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person Accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.

21. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the Accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the Accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.

22. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the Accused under the NDPS Act.

23. The submission made by learned Counsel for the Respondents that in Crime No. 14/2018, the bail has been granted to the other Accused persons(A-1 to A-4), and no steps have been taken by the prosecution to challenge the grant of post-arrest bail to the other Accused persons, is of no consequence for the reason that the consideration prevailed upon the Court to grant bail to the other Accused persons will not absolve the act of the Accused Respondent(A-5) from the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

24. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that they have been falsely implicated in Crime No. 19/2018