JUDGMENT The applicant is arrested and detained in Crime No.1/93 registered at P.S. Mhow pertaining to an offence punishable under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (For short' Act') and by this application, seeks restoration of his liberty on appropriate bail-bond. Liberty occupies a place of pride in a free country. Yet it must inevitably suffer an eclipse when it is found to be clashing with the interests of the society. The aforesaid Act is designed to combat the growing menace and as such, has drastic measures. Section 37 of the Act accordingly contains the constraints in matter of bail. As to the facts, it is enough to notice that the case-diary contains a memo of arrest reciting that the applicant was arrested on being found in possession of 27 grams of CHARAS (Cannabis-hemp). However, the case, destructive of this recital, speaks about the possession of Opium. Held: The principal question, however, is as to what should be the impact of recital of CHARAS and involvement on linchpin of OPIUM? And this assumed greater significance in the background of the submission that the accusation was manipulated; that the applicant, believed to be belonging to the banned organization, was made captive on 31.12.92 and a false case was foisted on him on 1.1.93, as New Year's gift, after due deliberation; and this design stood exploded as a myth by the aforesaid inconsistency. In passing, it may be noted that even Dy. Government Advocate was unable to offer serious opposition in terms of section 37 of the Act after perusal of the case-diary and after noting the submissions that there were over-writings on dates and interpolations about timings. The intimation report, as noted, did not show the compliance of section 50 of the Act. The stage of the case; however, demands silence in the interest of justice and comments, either way, would not be proper at the infancy of the case. So viewed, I refuse to go into the merits of the matter and say no more except that the conditions of section 37 of the Act should be taken to be satisfied for the adhoc-purpose of anaesthetizing the incarceration and ordering restoration of liberty on appropriate terms. To this extent, the case at this stage is not held to be irrecusable and is found to be fetter-free. To this extent, the case at this stage is not held to be irrecusable and is found to be fetter-free. There is no suggestion, not even a whisper, that there is likelihood of commission of offences in future on grant of bail. In the circumstances, the argument of the State in oppug-nation is surely svelte and consequently further detention is held to be sub-vertible. There is evidently a procedural lapse, may be for the limited purpose, provable as inconsequential at the trial, attracting the observation of Frankfurter, J. in the following words:-"He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword". In the a-analysis as aforesaid, this application for bail deserves to be allowed. 1991 (1) MPWN 142 (SC) discussed