SCC 382. C harges were framed on 16.04. 2 024, however, none out of 16 witnesses has been examined so far. 3. The custody certificate dated 21.05.2024, filed by learned State coun s el is taken on record, as per w hich, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 10 months and 17 days. 4. Learned State counsel oppos e s the bail on the ground that commercia l quantity of contraband was r ecovered from the petitioner, who was a p prehended at the spot. He is however unable to controvert the submission s made regarding the stage of th e case. 5. Heard. 6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court i n the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, “A s observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal anteced e nts, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other wor d s, it is the duty of the Court to find out th e role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other c ircumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.” 7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court i n the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh , SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided o n 25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period, involving q u antity recovered to be of com m ercial nature, where the trial is yet to co m mence, though charges had b een framed, the condition of Section 37 o f NDPS Act can be dispensed w ith. In the case of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the Division B e nch of this Court observed wi t h regard to achieving balance
