P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the petitioner on bail. The petitioner is accused of having committed offences under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the "n. D. P. S. Act") and Section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner is the owner of a Maruti Van bearing registration No. OAS 7405 and the co-Accused Sukant Kumar Biswal is the Driver. The Sub-Inspector of police of Bargarh Police Station while on patrol duty, on 21-8-1995 at about 9 p. m. received reliable information that a Maruti Van bearing number OAS 7405 was coming an N. H. 6 carrying Ganja and country liquor. On receiving this information, the Sub-Inspector along with other police staff proceeded towards Sohella side. At about 10. 30 p. m. , the Maruti Van was coming from Sohella side in high speed and did not stop in spite of signal given by the police officials. After chase was given by the police, the petitioner and the co-accused abandoned the van and ran away and could not be apprehended. Thereafter the police officials searched the vehicle and recovered 5 Kgs. of Ganja and 1,5000 litres of country liquor from inside the van. On the aforesaid allegations, the Sub-Inspector of Police lodged F. I. R. before the Officer-In-Charge, Bargarh Police Station, at 11. 30 p. m. The petitioner was apprehended on 29-1-1996 and was produced thereafter. His application for bail having been rejected by the Sessions Judge, this petition has been filed in this Court. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and perused the case diary which has been produced. It was first contended that the alleged offence under Section 20 (b) of the Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years and as such the bar under Section 37 of the Act may not be applicable. It is submitted that the bar under Section 37 should be made applicable to offence punishable with minimum five years of imprisonment. It is submitted that the bar under Section 37 should be made applicable to offence punishable with minimum five years of imprisonment. Inspirations for the aforesaid submission is drawn from the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in 1993 Cri LJ 94 (A. V. Dharmasingh v. The State Karnataka by the State Public Prosecutor) and the decision of the Patna High Court reported in 1994 (3) Crimes 671 (Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ). No doubt, the aforesaid two decisions support the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, the aforesaid two decisions run contrary to the decision of the Orissa High Court reported in 1992 (1) Crimes 79 (Rajendra Panda v. State of Orissa ). ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, then submitted that even assuming that the bar under Section 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act is applicable, in view of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 and Section 42 of the N. D. P. S. Act, the petitioner should be released on bail. He has drawn my attention to several cases of the Orissa High Court including (1994) 7 OCR 460 (Rabi Sahoo v. State); (1995) 8 OCR 320 (Fakir Sundari v. State of Orissa) and (1995) 9 OCR 121 (Narahari Das v. State), where accused persons allegedly involved under the N. D. P. S. Act were released on bail on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act. The underlying principles of the aforesaid decisions have been reiterated in (1996) 10 OCR 372 (Umakanta Patel v. State of Orissa ). The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there has been non-compliance of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act is prima facie unacceptable in view of the allegation that the petitioner as well as the co-accused ran away abandoning the vehicle. If the allegation is that the accused persons ran away before search and seizure, it is not understood as to how Section 50 can come into picture. The learned Counsel than submitted that there has been non-compliance of Section 42 (1) and (2) of the N. D. P. S. Act, inasmuch as the information received by the Sub-Inspector was not reduced to writing as required under Section 42 (1) and it was not sent to the immediate official superior as required under sub-Section (2 ). The learned Counsel than submitted that there has been non-compliance of Section 42 (1) and (2) of the N. D. P. S. Act, inasmuch as the information received by the Sub-Inspector was not reduced to writing as required under Section 42 (1) and it was not sent to the immediate official superior as required under sub-Section (2 ). In the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 7 OCR (SC) 283, the Supreme Court after referring to several decisions of various High Courts on the point set out its conclusions in paragraph-27 of the judgement. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder :-" (2-C) Under Section 42 (1) the empowered officer if has a prior information given by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter-IV have been committed or materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. , he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief. But under the proviso to Section 42 (1) if such officer has to carry out such search between sunset and sunrise, he must record the grounds of his belief. To this extent these provisions are mandatory and contravention of, the same would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial. (3) Under Section 42 (2) such empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Sec. 42 (1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non-compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case. " (Emphasis added) From the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the provisions relating to reducing the information to writing under Section 42 (1) is mandatory. A similar view has been expressed in the decision reported in 1993 (3) Crimes,817 (M. Loonathan v. Assistant Director ). " (Emphasis added) From the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the provisions relating to reducing the information to writing under Section 42 (1) is mandatory. A similar view has been expressed in the decision reported in 1993 (3) Crimes,817 (M. Loonathan v. Assistant Director ). The case diary which has been produced does not contain any material to indicate that the information received by the Sub-Inspector was taken down in writing. Since the materials produced before me do not prima facie satisfy the stringent requirement of the mandatory provision under Section 42 (1) of the NDPS Act, I am satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that ultimately, the petitioner may not be found guilty of such offence. ( 5 ) THERE is no material produced before me indicating that the petitioner was earlier involved m any offence in which case it could have been assumed that he is likely to commit any offence in future if released on bail. It is no doubt true that the petitioner allegedly escaped while being intercepted by the police and was apprehended after lapse of about four months or so. However, from the aforesaid facts. I am not persuaded to believe that the petitioner is likely to commit any offence while on bail, as there is no record of any criminal conduct on the part of the petitioner on any earlier occasion. The embargo imposed under Section 17 of the Act is, therefore, out of the way. The investigation seems to be over. Keeping in mew the background of the alleged offences and the conduct of the petitioner, though I am inclined to released the petitioner on bail, I feel that stringent conditions should be imposed. I, therefore, direct that the petitioner may be released on hail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees) along with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in S. T. Case No. 1993 of 1995 arising out of Burgarh P. S. case No. 203 dated 21-8-1995. I further direct that while on bail the petitioner shall report at the Bargarh Police Station on every Sunday till conclusion of the trial. I further direct that while on bail the petitioner shall report at the Bargarh Police Station on every Sunday till conclusion of the trial. Further the petitioner is required to attend, the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, on each date to which the case is posted unless, of course, the said condition is waived by the Sessions Judge himself. The observations made in the bail order regarding the factual aspect being prima facie opinion should not have the effect of embarrassing either the prosecution the accused person at the time of trial and the matter should be decided on the basis of legal evidence adduced in course of the trial. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. .