1. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 120/2022 of Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 8/21, 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery has been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has been implicated only with the aid of Section 29 of NDPS Act. It is argued that the recovered contraband is less than commercial quantity and the main accused in this case i.e. Vikas @ Laddu and Sagar @ Sonu has already been released on bail by this Court. The case of the petitioner is not distinguishable and therefore, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that as many as sixteen criminal cases are registered against the petitioner out of which fifteen cases are offences under NDPS Act and as per call details on record, the main accused was in touch with the present petitioner, therefore, bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the record.

5. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power to grant or refuse bail is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised judiciously. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the recovered contraband is below commercial quantity and Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case.

6. The main purpose of the NDPS Act is to curb and strictly deal with illicit trafficking in powerful, dangerous and injurious street drugs. Hence, the provisions of NDPS are not to be construed liberally, rather, they are to ensure effective implementation of rule of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durand Didier vs. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa [1990 SCC (1) 95] while dealing with the menace that drug trafficking is, has observed as under:

"With deep concern, we may point out that the organized activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, the Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine."

7. There are twin requisite conditions which are sine qua non for enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act. The first condition is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence while granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act as under; and the second is that accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

8. Similarly, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Of India vs. Ram Samujh And Anr reported in 1999 (9) SCC 429 has observed as under:

"It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered and followed. It should be borne in mind that in murder case, accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable: it causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved."

9. In State of Kerala and Ors. v. Rajesh and Ors., reported in 2020 12 SCC 122 the Hon'ble Apex Court decided that Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure both apply to the exercise of the authority to issue bail in instances involving offenses under the NDPS Act. The prohibition on providing bail will take effect if any of the requirements is not fulfilled. The Court reiterated the essential conditions to be fulfilled for granting of bail for offences alleged to have been committed under the NDPS Act. The relevant para is reproduced hereunder:

"18. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed.

26. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the respondents on bail is hereby set aside. Bail bonds of the accused respondents stand cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody. The trial Court is directed to proceed and expedite the trial."

10. In the opinion of this Court, merely because the petitioner is implicated for accusation relating to small or intermediate quantity of contraband cannot ipso facto confer a right of bail, on such a suspect or accused. The leaders of organized crime often exploit vulnerable individuals, such as the indigent, poor, unemployed, or those with financial obligations, by enticing them to act as small peddlers for the trafficking of small and intermediate quantities of contraband. They believe they can escape arrest, or the 'so-called vicious cycle', if the quantity is small or intermediate. These peddlers often become habitual offenders being involved in numerous cases under NDPS, like the present petitioner against whom fifteen criminal cases are registered for offence under Section NDPS Act, thus, petitioner misused the liberty granted to him again and again, therefore, it becomes an important ingredient while examining claim for bail. The bail applications filed under the guise of small or below commercial quantities can give a suspect leverage to continue inhumane trade and nefarious activities, thereby destroying society and exploitation of youth. Such individuals are causing harm to the health of those caught in such illegal activities. Thus, the enlargement on bail is likelihood to give rise to similar offence(s) being repeated by the bail petitioner, which shall certainly cause further damage and exploitation to the society at large.

11. In view of above, no case for bail is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as far as possible within a period of six months. If the trial is not concluded within stipulated period, then the petitioner may file a fresh bail application before the trial court.