SAT PAL, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is for grant of bail under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 10th May, 1992 some police officers led by SHO police station Lajpat Nagar were on a round in the area where an informant informed the SHO that at Shiv Mandir near Jal Vihar Terminal some persons had charas in their possession. It is further alleged that SHO oragnised a raiding party and some passers by were informed the circumstances and requested to join the raiding party but all of them expressed their inability. Accordingly, a raid was conductedwithout associating any public witness. The petitioner tried to run in the direction of Jal Vihar Terminal but was apprehended by SI Shiv Narain with the help of one constable. It is further alleged that a packet containing material which looked like charas was recovered from him and its weight was found to be 0. 65 gms out of which 00. 5 gms was taken out for the purpose of sampling. The petitioner was thereafter arrested for an offence under section 20 of the NDPS Act. ( 3 ) MR. B. T. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in the FIR the weight of the charas alleged to have been reovered from the petitioner is shown as 0. 65. and, accordingly, the offence against the petitioner can be under section 27 and not under section 20 of the NDPS Act. Leamed counsel further submitted that there is violation of section 57 of NDPS Act inasmuch as report under section 57 was not sent to the immediate superior officer. In suport of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on three judgments, Lawrance D Souza vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 1992crl. L. J. 399, A. V. Dharamasingh and others vs The State of Kamataka by the Public Prosecutor, Bangalore, 1993 Crl. L. J. 94 and Wilson Dayal vs Slate, DRJ 1993 (25) 49. ( 4 ) REPLY affidavit signed and sworn by the SHO police Station Lajpat Nagar has been filed on behalf of the State and it has been stated therein that due to clerical error the weight of charas was mentioned in the FIR as 0. 65 gms. instead of 65 gms. ( 4 ) REPLY affidavit signed and sworn by the SHO police Station Lajpat Nagar has been filed on behalf of the State and it has been stated therein that due to clerical error the weight of charas was mentioned in the FIR as 0. 65 gms. instead of 65 gms. by the duty officer of PS Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and in fact the quantitiy of the charas was 65 gms. Relying on this affidavit Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there was a clerical error in the FIR and the same will be explained during the trial. As regards the violtion of section 57 of NDPS Act, he drew my attention to an endorsement at the end of the FIR but that endorsement shows that the report in question shall be sent to the higher officer. Learned counsel could not show me any document to the effect that a report in fact was sent to the immediate superior officer. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that compliance of section 57 can be proved during the trial. He placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in K. M. Saleemvs State, 1989 (1) Delhi Lawyer 140. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the judgments cited by them. Aftertaking into consideration the totality of cirucmstances and particularly the fact that no document to the effect that a report under section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent to the immediate superior officer was shown to me, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to bail. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum ofrs. 20,000. 00 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. ( 7 ) THE observations made hereinabove will have no bearing on the merit of the case. ( 8 ) WITH this order the petition stands disposed of.