ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner in both the petitions.

2. These two criminal petitions are filed challenging the enlarging the respondent/accused No.5 and accused No.3 in NCB Crime No.48/01/22/2021/BZU registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c)

R/w 22(a)(b)(c), 25, 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act

1985.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that 21 grams of MDMA alleged in the prosecution papers seized from the accused person, the same was sent for FSL and it is opined that it is amphetamine and caffeine. That the seizure was made on 21.10.2021 at about 18.10 hours based on the credible information and accused No.1 is proceeding along with other accused persons. On information and obtaining the permission from the superiors went along with panchas and apprehended the accused persons. On personal search, found 21 grams of MDMA, methamphetamine weighing 40 grams, methaqualone weighing 3 grams and mahazar was drawn and case was registered and investigation was completed and filed the final report. The accused persons who are the respondents herein i.e., accused Nos.3 and 5. The accused No.3 has filed bail application before the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.896/2022 and other accused No.5 has filed bail petition before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.3962/2022 and the same judge vide different order dated 13.05.2022 enlarged the accused No.5 on bail in Crl.Misc.No.3962/2022 and enlarged the accused No.3 on bail vide order dated 06.06.2022 in Spl.C.C.No.896/2022. Hence, these two criminal petitions are filed before this Court.

4. The counsel for respective parties in both the criminal petitions that is in respect of accused No.5/respondent in Crl.P.No.10598/2022 and also accused No.3/respondent in Crl.P.No.10752/2022 are concerned, common grounds are urged contending that the accused in his voluntary statement under Section 67 of N.D.P.S Act has admitted the manner and factum of the recovery and confessed his drug trafficking. The contraband was recovered from a specially made cavity in the dash board, but the Trial Court has not applied its mind in granting bail has proceeded to pass order that no contraband was found in the possession of the contraband did not fulfill the parameters of Section 37(1)(b) and there was non-application of mind by the Trial Court. The counsel also contend that grant of bail to the respondent would led to destroying of any further evidences and also there is every chance of the respondents to influence or threaten the mahazar witness of this case. The counsel also would vehemently contend that offences invoked against the respondents under the N.D.P.S Act, 1985, punishment is not less than 10 years, the same extend up to 20 years of imprisonment, a fine of not less than one lakh rupees which may extend to two lakh rupees and also the Trial Court fails to take note of the gravity of the offences.

5. The counsel also contend that the Trial Court fails to take note of gravity of the offence and it is an offence against the society at large and did not press into the service of Section 37 of N.D.P.S Act that there are no reasonable grounds in the case to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence under N.D.P.S Act 1985 to get relief of enlargement of bail in as much as the seized contraband is of commercial quantity, there is a statutory embargo for grant of bail in terms of Section 37 of N.D.P.S Act. The Trial Court fails to take note of quantity of contraband was seized i.e., 21 grams of MDMA, methamphetamine weighing 40 grams, methaqualone weighing 3 grams was found, concealed in the vehicle, the same is also a commercial quantity and not discussed anything about the commercial quantity in respect of MDMA. Hence, prayed this Court to set-aside the bail granted in favour of accused Nos.3 and 5.

6. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also re-

iterates the very same ground in the argument also contending that the Trial Court has passed the order without look