JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The case of the prosecution is that three and half kilo-grams of Post-Chura was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 29-12-1992. Learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar rejected the application for bail filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13-1-1993. Hence, the petitioner has come to this Court. It is submitted that trial of the case may take some time and, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been falsly implicated. 3. Learned P.P. opposes the application for bail and he submits that-Post-Chura recovered from the petitioner falls within the definition of 'poppy straw' as defined in Section 2 (xviii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act. 1985, for which minimum punishment of 10 years has been prescribed by Section 15 of the aforesaid Act. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Poppy chura recovered from the petitioner would fall within the definition of "Lanced Poppy Heads" as defined in rule 2(rule) of the Rajasthan Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 and hence Section 15 would not be attracted. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. 5. Section 2 (xvii) of the above Act defines "Opium poppy" as follows: "(xvii) "Opium poppy" means (a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.; (b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act." It then defines "Poppy straw" as follows: "(xviii) Poppy straw" means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom." Definition of "Lanced Poppy Heads" given in the Raj. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 reads as follows: "2(rule) "Lanced Poppy Heads" means the capsules of the Poppy plant whatever in the original form, cut, crushed or powdered from which the juice has been extracted." "2(r) "Lanced Poppy Heads" means the capsules of the Poppy plant whatever in the original form, cut, crushed or powdered from which the juice has been extracted." 6. In my opinion, the definition given in the aforesaid Rules cannot override the definition given in the main provisions contained in the Act. The definition of "Poppy straw" is quite extensive and, therefore, in my opinion Poppy Hask would fall within Poppy straw as defined in Section 2 (xviii) of the aforesaid Act. However, the question is whether the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice an order of the learned single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Bail Pet. No. 1184/92-Dara Singh v. State of Raj. decided on 3.7.1992 , where the accused was apprehended with 10 kgs. of 'opium churl' in his possession. On this, basis, it is urged that the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail. As against this learned P.P. submits that bail can be granted only when conditions laid down under section 37 of the aforesaid Act are fulfilled. In this connection he relied upon Narcotic Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and Ors., AIR 1991 SC 558 . In this Judgment the Apex Court has held: "The powers of the High Court to grant bail under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code are subject to the limitation contained in the amended Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the restrictions placed on the powers of the Court under the said Section are applicable to the High Court also in the matter of granting bail " In this view of the matter, this Court shall have to examine whether conditions laid down ups 37 of the Act have been fulfilled. Two conditions have been laid down in this section : the first conditions is that the public prosecutor should have been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. This condition has been complied with in the present case because the learned public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for grant of bail. The second condition is as follows: "where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." This condition itself supposes two conditions. The second condition is as follows: "where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail." This condition itself supposes two conditions. The second part of this provision requires the court to be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail There is no previous conviction of the petitioner and there is no allegation that he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Hence, this condition is also satisfied. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of Section 50 of the Act have not been complied with. Learned public prosecutor submits that he does not have the case diary with him and, therefore, he may be granted some time to show that prima facie provisions of Section 50 of the Act had been complied with. This request appears to be proper. 8. List the matter after one week, Tide learned P.P. may call for the case diary so that this point may be examined. 9. Heard in part. 10. On 11-2-91 Shri Sandhu prayed for time for showing t hat provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act, were not complied with. He. however, does not press this point and submits that in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No. 2258/92 Balkar Singh v. State decided on 16.3.93 , the petitioner was enlarged on bail even though he was said to have been found in possession of 8 kgs. of 'Chura of Post. It is submitted that in the present case only three kgs. and 500 gms. of 'Chura post' was recovered from the petitioner and the trial of the case may take much time. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. The learned public prosecutor opposed the application for bail. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. one lac. and two sureties in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar for appearing in his Court on date/dates to be fixed by him, provided that he is not required in any other case. 12. Mr. one lac. and two sureties in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar for appearing in his Court on date/dates to be fixed by him, provided that he is not required in any other case. 12. Mr. Sandhu has filed another application stating that in order sheet dated 11-2-93 instead of H.S. Sandhu; S. Sidhu' was noted by mistake and the same may be corrected. Learned P.P. has no objection. 13. Therefore, in ordersheet dated 11-2-93 name 'H.S. Sidhu' may be read as 'H.S. Sandhu'. The application is disposed of, accordingly.Bail granted. *******