Sethi, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. Acting upon a definite information received by Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, force was deployed and the respondent accused apprehended on the night of 24.3.2000. After compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act; 1985 (hereinafter called "the Act"), opium weighing 7 kg was seized from the accused which he had kept in his bag. After completing necessary procedural formalities and getting the samples tested, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused in the competent Court. Application for bail moved by the accused was rejected by the trial Court. Dissatisfied with the rejection of his bail application, the respondent-accused moved an application in the High Court which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2052 of 2000. The said application was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 5.6.2000. Without mentioning any change in the circumstances, the respondent-accused moved another application in the High Court in the month of August 2000, which was adjourned from time to time and ultimately allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant State has contended' that the High Court has committed an error of law by granting bail to the respondent-accused ignoring the provisions of section 37 of the Act, though merely making a mention of it in the impugned order. It is further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified in granting the bail to the accused in view of the dismissal of his earlier bail application and in the absence of any change in the circumstances. The learned Judge granting the bail is stated to have adopted a casual approach in dealing with a heinous crime committed under the Act. It is submitted that the order granting the bail amounts to reviewing the earlier order which is not permissible in criminal cases.

4. It is not disputed that the accused was apprehended and charged for the commission of an offence punishable under section 18 of the Act which is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term, not less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years and is also liable to a fine of not less than one lakh rupees.

5. Section 37 of the Act provides that the offences under the Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable. It reads:

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bailor on his own bond unless -(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. " The purpose for which the Act was enacted and the menace of drug trafficking which it intends to curtail is evident from its scheme. A perusal of section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 37(1). For granting the bail the Court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences