VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-Vasantkumar Durgashankar Joshi, who came to be arrested in connection with Prohibition C. R. No. 392 of 1991, registered at Umreth police Station for having been found in possession of 6 gms. of Opium, valued at Rs. 515. 00, has by this Misc. Criminal Application moved this Court for getting himself released on bail, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 7-12-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaira at nadiad, rejecting his bail application. * for being released on bail. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the complainant, P. S. I. M. I. Paiya, on 21-11-1991 when he was in-charge of Umreth Police Station, he received a telephonic message from the Traffic Constable Rajendrasinh Chandusinh to the effect that a driver of one Tempo bearing No. GJ-6-T-4361, who was in habit of taking Opium and was in possession thereof was coming from Dakor and going to Vadodara. Immediately on the basis of the said information, the P. S. I. Paiya proceeded to S. T. Bus Stand and called two panch witnesses. Thereafter, he alongwith the said two panch witnesses and two Police constables, viz. , Rajendrasinh chandusinh and Babubhai Gangabhai, went to a road whereby the petitioner was to pass-by in order to keep a watch. After sometime on Tempo in question coming, it was stopped and driver thereof was asked to get down and disclose his name. The driver thereafter gave his name as Vinodkumar Durgashankar joshi, resident of village Dashrath (Vadodara ). On taking search of his person, the muddamal Opium weighing roughly about 6 gms valued at Rs. 515. 00 was recovered from him regarding which he had neither any pass nor permit nor any explanation. After seizing and sealing the muddamal in question in presence of the panchas, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner thereafter submitted misc. Criminal Application No. 1214 of 1991 before the learned Sessions Judge, kaira at Nadiad for getting himself released on bail, which as stated above, came to be rejected giving rise to the present application for bail before this court. ( 3 ) MR. M. C. Barot, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a poor driver and was wrongly involved for the alleged offence under the Narcotic Act as he had some quarrel with the Police regarding some traffic offence. According to Mr. ( 3 ) MR. M. C. Barot, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a poor driver and was wrongly involved for the alleged offence under the Narcotic Act as he had some quarrel with the Police regarding some traffic offence. According to Mr. Barot, in the complaint itself, it has been alleged that the muddamal Opium was weighing roughly about 6 gms, that is to say at the relevant time the muddamal article was not weighed, but its weight has been roughly estimated and approximately given. Under such circumstances, Mr. Barot submitted that what ought we know that the muddamal was in fact 6 gms. or much below the minimum quantity prescribed under the statute. Mr. Barot further submitted that taking the averments in the complaint at its highest best the same clearly indicate two things, viz. (1) that the petitioner was in habit of taking Opium and that it was not meant for sell or distribution; and (2) that the weight of the muddamal in question was roughly given. Under such circumstances, Mr. Barot finally urged that it would be patently illegal and unjust to deny the bail to the petitioner. Mr. Barot further submitted that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the circumstances highlighted by him above and refused bail merely on the ground that the muddamal Opium was more than the minimum prescribed under the statute and that the possibility of the petitioner repeating the offence cannot be ruled out. ( 4 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the offence alleged under the Narcotic Act is a serious offence and that it requires to be strictly censured and dealt with, but that certainly does not mean that the idealistic zeal should overlook the manifest flaw or the lapse in the case of the investigation itself. The facts in the complaint clearly reveal that the muddamal in question was meant for personal use and consumption of the petitioner. Not only that, but when it was weighed, it was found to be approximately of 6 gms. The Investigating officer in absence of taking appropriate care of having the exact weighment of the seized muddamal article, the lapse on his part cannot be permitted to be visited upon the petitioner by denying him bail. The learned A. P. P. has been unable to controvert this position. The Investigating officer in absence of taking appropriate care of having the exact weighment of the seized muddamal article, the lapse on his part cannot be permitted to be visited upon the petitioner by denying him bail. The learned A. P. P. has been unable to controvert this position. In the result, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail with same stringent terms and conditions. ( 5 ) IN the result, this application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 2000. 00 and a solvent surety of the like amount with the following conditions : (1) That he shall deposit Rs. 1500. 00 in the Court of the learned Additional sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, by way of security for his good conduct, that is to say, that while on bail he shall not abuse his liberty either by repeating the same or similar offence and/or temper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly by threatening, inducing or in any other way influencing the prosecution witnesses, till the trial is over. (2) On the aforesaid amount being deposited by the petitioner in the Court, the learned Judge shall deposit the same in any Nationalised Bank initially for a period of 13 months and thereafter from time to time as deemed fit. (3) This amount shall be liable to be forefeited in the event of proved misconduct of abusing the liberty by the petitioner while on bail. (4) That the said amount shall be returned to the petitioner at the end of the trial, if the same is not otherwise forefeited because of the petitioners proved misconduct of abusing liberty while on bail. (5) The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount on or before 1-1-1992. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. .