Facts:

• Asecret information was received in a police station on 28.09.2015, at about 6:15 pm, that today at 7:30 pm a person named Nitesh, a resident of Chhattisgarh who supplies in Delhi and NCR, will be coming along with his accomplices in vehicle having Chhattisgarh registration XUV white colour, to supply ganja under Barapula Flyover, Ring Road near Gurudwara Bala Sahib from Ashram Chowk side.
   
• A raid should be conducted to arrest the same, so A Raiding Party was constituted and conducted, four accused persons namely Nitesh Ekka, Sanjay Chauhan, Sharif Khan, and Virender Shakiyavar @ Deepak were allegedly apprehended with illegal ganja of 180 kg, and thereafter were arrested in the case.
   
• During the investigation, 7 (seven) days of police custody remand of co-accused Nitesh Ekka was obtained, and he was taken to Chhattisgarh to identify co-accused persons. In the instance of co-accused Nitesh Ekka, the applicant/ accused Mohd. Muslim was arrested from his village in the intervening night of 03/04.10.2014 and his two days police custody remand was obtained.
   
• On the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Nitesh Ekka, the petitioner herein was arrested. Charges were laid against the appellant and other co-accused. The district court denied the appellant's request for bail due to the seriousness of the alleged offences.
   
• The application for normal bail was denied, and the trial court was ordered to accelerate and end the matter within six months on the grounds that there was a prima facie case against him and no basis to rely on the exceptions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the appellant has returned to this court to request for the granting of standard bail.

Issues:

1. On what ground shall the Court determine the phrase 'not guilty' under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 when all the evidence is not before the Court?
2. Whether the bail can be granted to the accused, taking into consideration the rigid conditions in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?

Arguments Advanced By The Appellant
Counsel for the appellant argued that because of the prolonged confinement, they should be granted bail. The trial had made little to no progress since the High Court's directive to quicken proceedings, and 34 additional witnesses remained to be examined.

It was also noted that both the main defendant Virender Singh @ Beerey and co-defendant Nepal Yadav have previously received bail orders from the High Court. On the basis of parity, urged bail.

Arguments Advanced By The Respondent
In a drug case, the Additional Solicitor General of India objected to the appellant being granted bail, citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act. According to the ASG, the appellant actively participated in the crime and had ties to the principal accused. Concerns about individual liberty were exceeded by the public interest in preventing the sale and consumption of illegal narcotics, which supported keeping the appellant in detention. To stop major crimes like drug peddling, provisions like Section 37 of the NDPS Act are required. The appellant was allegedly the driving force behind the supply and transportation of drugs, according to the ASG.

Judgement
When the court is reasonably convinced that the accused is innocent after taking a prima facie look at the facts in the record (at the time the bail application is lodged), such specific requirements as those specified under Section 37 can be taken into account within constitutional bounds. Any other interpretation would result in a person accused of an offence covered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act being completely denied bail.

Conclusion
The appellant has been in custody for over 7 years and 4 months, he was arrested when he was 23 years old and the trial's progress has been really slow. The additional requirement that the court must be satisfied that the accused-who is by law presumed innocent-is not guilty must be interpreted reasonably in light of the general law on bail (Sections 436, 437, and 439, CrPC).

Which classifies offences based on their gravity and instructs that certain serious crimes must be dealt with differently when considering bail applications. Because the loss to the accused in the event of an acquittal is irreparable, the courts must take these factors into consideration and make sure that trials-especially in situations where special laws implement strict provisions-are started and finished quickly.