Nisha Gupta, J.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBN and perused the relevant material placed before me.

2. This second bail application has been filed on the ground that earlier a liberty has been granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer after the order of charge is passed. Now charges have been framed against the petitioner. The only incriminating evidence is the statement of co-accused which is not a legal evidence. In his own statement, he has not incriminated himself. Charge-sheet has been filed, hence the petitioner be released on bail.

3. Per contra, the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBN is that co-accused Bitu Singh and Hira Singh from whom contraband has been recovered have been convicted by the competent court and Bitu Singh has implicated Saheb Singh and Saheb Singh in his statement clearly implicated the petitioner. Apart from it, the petitioner has also been convicted for the offence under the NDPS Act and statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could not be scrutinised at this stage. There is settled and reasonable apprehension against the petitioner that he has committed the offence and after considering the merits of the case, charges have also been framed against the petitioner, hence he should not be released on bail.

4. The petitioner has relied upon Abdul Rashid v. State of Bihar, 2001 (4) Supreme 451 where conviction on confession was found improper and reliance has also been placed on Cr. Appeal No. 152/2013 Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu decided on 8.10.2013 and Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (7) Supreme 833 where provisions of Section 67 NDPS has been dealt with whereas prosecution has relied upon Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798 where bar of Section 37 NDPS Act has been explained and further reliance has been placed on Babua @ Tazmul Hossain v. State of Orissa, 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 195 where on the basis of statement of co-accused, involvement of the petitioner has been found and bail has not been allowed on the facts which are identical with the matter and apart from it, the petitioner has been charged for the offence, hence no case is made out for the benefit of bail.

5. The bail application is accordingly rejected.