As per case facts, the Petitioner and a co-accused were observed walking together, ran away upon seeing the police, and were subsequently apprehended. A search led to the recovery of ... a commercial quantity of charas from the co-accused's backpack, with the Petitioner being an accomplice. The Petitioner sought regular bail, contending false implication and no recovery from him. The question arose whether the Petitioner met the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity. Finally, the Court observed prima facie sufficient material connecting the Petitioner to the offence due to his presence, fleeing from the police, and lack of explanation. It was held that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37, which require reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. Bail was therefore denied, upholding that negation of bail is the rule in such cases.