JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is in custody in connection with S. T. Case No. 250/95 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. It is alleged that he has committed an offence u/s 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter) referred to as the "NDPS Act"). 2. The petitioner had filed an application before the Sessions Court which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance) by order dated 29-3-1996. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is as follows : "In obedience to a Full Bench decision of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa that Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands as a bar for releasing the person accused of an offence u/s 20(b)(i) NDPS Act, i feel it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the bail matter of the accused in face of the prohibition sounded by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. In the circumstances, the application for bail is rejected......." The underlined portion reflects the lack of appreciation on the ?art of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the actual position of law. The High Court nowhere has laid down that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to consider a bail matter of an accused involved in an offence u/s 20(b)(i) or even more serious offences under the NDPS Act. What has been laid down by the High Court is that the bail application of accused persons should be considered keeping in view the bar imposed u/s 37 of the NDPS Act. If on examination of record, it is held that the bar of Section 37 is applicable, the bail application is liable to be rejected. However, it is not the same thing as to say that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to consider the bail matter as has been observed by the Additional Sessions Judge in this case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 have not been complied with and relying upon the decision reported in (1996) 10 OCR 372 (Umakanta Patel v. State of Orissa) he submits that violation of any mandatory provisions of the Act can be considered to be a ground for release of an accused person on bail under the NDPS Act. Since the Additional Sessions Judge does not appear to have considered the merit of the case while rejecting the bail petition, I direct that the bail application of the petitioner should be re-considered by the Sessions Court. The question now raised regarding non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act may also be considered in the light of the materials available on record. This bail application is disposed of accordingly. Needless to say that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order to be passed by the Court below, it would be open to him to approach this Court. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly.