Judgment : N. ARUMUGHAM, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. ( 2 ) MR. S. Samuel Rajapandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has persuaded me that in arresting the third accused, the petitioner herein, section 42 (2) of the N. D. P. S. Act has not been complied with, which is a mandatory one and that in as much as the same has not been followed, it is totally adverse to the plea of the respondent. Then. he has added the attacks on the basis of non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 57 of the N. D. P. S. Act ( 3 ) WHILE countering the said attacks, Mr. P. Rajamanickam the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would raise a legal question that in view of the non obstante clause provided in Sec. 37 (b) of the N. D. P. S. Act and particularly in the context of the legal ratio held by the Apex Court in Kishanlal and others v. N. C. B. Delhi, the power of this court to grant bail for non-compliance of the procedural laches has been taken away and that therefore, the learned counsel, would contend, that the ratio held by the Apex Court in the above case law while dealing with Section 37 (b) is totally absolute and that even assuming that there was some laches in compliance of the directions, the embargo under Sec. 37 (b) of the said Act, cannot be avoided and that therefore, the learned counsel objected for the petitioner being enlarged on bail. ( 4 ) WITH regard to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the same, for the simple reason, that the petitioner was intercepted in a highway and in a public way, while coming on an auto and was arrested in a public place. In this context, Section 42 (2) of the N. D. P. S-: Act cannot come into the picture. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. ( 5 ) IN so far as the non-compliance of Section 57 of the N. D. P. S. Act, which is a mandatory, is concerned, I am fully satisfied to hold that no special report as been sent by the arresting officer to his immediate superiors was considered by this court in Cr1. O. P. No. 13001/93. ( 5 ) IN so far as the non-compliance of Section 57 of the N. D. P. S. Act, which is a mandatory, is concerned, I am fully satisfied to hold that no special report as been sent by the arresting officer to his immediate superiors was considered by this court in Cr1. O. P. No. 13001/93. With regard to the contention raised by the learned standing counsel for the respondent, for the reason that even if the Apex Court has not stated so any where, in the above case law, that the non-compliance of the mandatory provision of the N. D. P. S. Act, would not hamper the magnitude in built and Section 37 (b) of the Act, it is for the investigating agency to function only in accordance with the law. The relevant provisions are there to show that the investigating agency whichever it may be, is duty bound to follow the same, and the noncompliance of the same, clearly vitiates their investigation. For the said position, I am not, inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I am fully satisfied to hold that there is a presumption that the petitioner herein is not likely to commit offence if he is enlarged on bail. Therefore, the bail is granted on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, (N. D. P. S. Act) Madras, however with the following other conditions: (1) The petitioner shall not move out of the Madras Municipal Corporation Limits on any account without prior permission of this court and shall always reside at Madras; (2) He shall report to the respondent police at 10. 00 A. M. and 4. 00 P. M. , daily regularly without fail, and make himself available at any time for interrogation by the respondent; and (3) He shall not indulge in any activities causing impediment to the investigation to be carried on in this case and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Bail granted with conditions.