Judgment : Invoking Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T.Nagar, Madras-17 has prayed for the relief of cancelling the bail granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge to the respondent-Rahamathullah herein for the alleged offence under Sec.21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed in Crl.M.P.No.3900 of 1993, dated 30.7.1993 on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order virtually failed to advert his mind at all to the relevant position of law specifically provided in Sec.37 of the Act, as well as the case law decided by this Court and various other High Courts and more particularly the Apex Court in this regard. 2. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent through their respective counsels. With regard to the facts involved in this case, since it reflects the same and common facts involved and discussed by this Court narrated in detail in Crl.O.P.No.8973 of 1993, dated 19. 1993 and Crl.O.P.No.8835 of 1993, dated 10. 1993 and the question arises for consideration in this case is identical and common one, I do not propose to traverse the same once again in this order which according to me is unnecessary. That apart, there is no dispute with regard to the factual aspects of the case in so far as the above position is concerned among the Bar. 3. The various reasonings given by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in the impugned order while granting the bail cannot be sustained in law for the mere reasoning of the decision rendered by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.8973 of 1993, dated 19. 1993 as well as Crl.O.P.No.8835 of 1993, dated 10. 1993. Added to, the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Krishan Lal and others, 1991 L.W.(Crl.) 53, has clearly enunciated the legal principle to be followed in this regard. 1993 as well as Crl.O.P.No.8835 of 1993, dated 10. 1993. Added to, the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Krishan Lal and others, 1991 L.W.(Crl.) 53, has clearly enunciated the legal principle to be followed in this regard. In toeing the line of the said legal rationale while discussing the scope of Sec.439 of the Code in granting the bail by this Court or by the learned Sessions Judge, a Division Bench of this Court in Sundaresan alias Meganathan alias Mega v. State represented by Inspector of Police etc., 1993 L W. (Crl.) 171, has clearly spelt out the legal ratio that unless and until the compliance of the procedural mandate in-built in various provisions of the Act has been followed, no accused on no account is to be entitled to be enlarged on bail on the basis of mere extraneous matters. Following the said rationale this Court in the two cases, unreported judgments above referred to, has categorically held that the norm adopted by the Court below in granting the bail is illegal, incorrect and improper and that, therefore, vitiated with every illegality and impropriety. While stating so, it is to be remembered as declared by the Apex Court in the above referred case law that Sec.37ofthe Act virtually fetters the power of this Court as well as the Sessions Court to grant bail for the offence under the said Act. For all the above said reasons, after having carefully gone through the impugned order and its observations made in detail by the learned Sessions Judge, I am not inclined to accept the same as legal, tenable and maintainable and that in this regard after having carefully considered thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is vitiated with every illegality and impropriety for not having followed the judicial and well settled norm and principles of law. No circumstances of any kind pertaining to the violation of the legal mandate has been brought out by the Bar in this case making me to think or have any conception otherwise. Therefore the impugned order passed by the learned. Sessions Judge in granting bail is to be set aside immediately. 4. No circumstances of any kind pertaining to the violation of the legal mandate has been brought out by the Bar in this case making me to think or have any conception otherwise. Therefore the impugned order passed by the learned. Sessions Judge in granting bail is to be set aside immediately. 4. The second ground is the written objections submitted on behalf of the petitioner herein though justifiably and necessarily to be considered by the court below has not been considered at all and it is the disturbing feature that the learned Sessions Judge has merely overlooked and ignored the well settled judicial principle, legal norm and the provision of law while granting the bail to the petitioner. In this regard, enough for me to state the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner by the learned standing counsel has not at all been adverted to. 5. For all the reasoning aforesaid, I am of the firm view that the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain for any movement hereafter and accordingly it is hereby set aside. 6. In the result, the petition stand succeeds and accordingly it is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.3900 of 1993 dated 30.7.1993 is herein set aside. Consequently the respondent herein is directed to surrender before the court below for immediate judicial custody without any delay. If not, the petitioner herein is permitted to take suitable legal steps to secure him as provided by law for the judicial custody.