ORDER 1. Heard Shri AH Khan, counsel for the applicant with Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate; Shri G. Desai, G.A. for prosecution. Considered case diary. 2. It is the submission of Shri AH Khan, that prosecution case itself shows that the applicant and her husband Sabir Ahmed were in the concerned house when the raiding party visited it and after seeing the arrival of the raiding party, Sabir Ahmed ran away. He pointed that as the husband ran away, this applicant was arrested by the raiding party and now she has been put to face the prosecution alongwith her husband Sabir Ahmed. These facts indicated by the prosecution case have not been denied by Shri Desai because they are consistent with the case diary. Shri AH Khan argued that there should be material on record to come to conclusion that the applicant was in exclusive possession of house where narcotic drug was found and should be in exclusive possession of Narcotic Drug. He placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in following cases: 3. Kishanlal v. State of M.P. (1994 (1) EFR 594 in which this Court held that- "In absence of evidence connecting that accused with recovery, conviction was liable to be set aside." In that case the Court found that the place from where narcotic drug was recovered, was accessable to anybody. Mst. Kishanlal v. State of M.P. (1994 (1) EFR 594 in which this Court held that- "In absence of evidence connecting that accused with recovery, conviction was liable to be set aside." In that case the Court found that the place from where narcotic drug was recovered, was accessable to anybody. Mst. Phool Kunwarbai and another v. State of M.P. reported in 1994 (1) EFR 600, where this Court held that "When contraband articles were seized from the cloth bag which was kept in "BAKHI" of a house where cow dung cakes were stored, the accused cannot be held to be in conscious possession of narcotic drug." M.Cr.C. 1977/94 (Attaullah @ Attu s/o Aziz Khan v. CBN Indore this Court held that "Where there is no satisfactory material in proof of the ownership or possession of the house, the accused deserves to be released on bail." Shri Khan also placed reliance on Jammu & Kashmir High Court judgment reported in 1994 (1) EFR 298 Gulam Mohiudin v. State of J & K, wherein the Court held that "Recovery of CHARAS from the house occupied by several persons and when there is no evidence to show that recovery was made from possession of the accused, it was fit case for grant of bail." In this matter J & K High Court considered restrictions put by provisions of S. 37 of NDPS Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act for convinience). 4. Shri Desai, argued that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Thamisharasi and others reported in 1995 SCC (Cr.) 665, it is for the accused to bring it to the notice of the Court that it is a case where the Court would be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty for such offence (an offence punishable under NDPS Act), in such case only the accused can be released on bail. He placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in the matter of State of Punjab v. Dharmindar Kumar @ Kaka reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 835 wherein the Supreme Court held that "When the order granting bail is stating that 'it cannot be said at this stage as to whether the accused is guilty of offence or not. He placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in the matter of State of Punjab v. Dharmindar Kumar @ Kaka reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 835 wherein the Supreme Court held that "When the order granting bail is stating that 'it cannot be said at this stage as to whether the accused is guilty of offence or not. Provisions of S.37 of NDPS Act have been breached." Shri Desai, also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Supreme Court Legal Committee representing under trial persons v. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 731 - 747, wherein Supreme Court judgment observed that the "the accused under NDPS Act are getting bail on technical ground." Shri Desai submitted by pointing this judgment of Supreme Court that there is trend of accused getting the bail on technical ground and therefore, provisions of S. 37 should be strictly applied. 5. Shri Desai placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that "at the time of considering the bail, an enquiry cannot be made in respect of compliance of provisions of S.50 of NDPS Act. 6. By referring to this judgment, he submitted that in the present case no enquiry could be made in respect of compliance of provisions of S.50 of NDPS Act. He further pointed that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court the factum of possession would be a matter of trial and prosecution would be leading the evidence as to who happened to be in possession of the said house at the relevant time. For fortifying his argument, Shri Desai pointed that present applicant was arrested by the members of raiding party when she was found in the said house. According to Shri Desai this fact itself proves that the applicant was in possession of the narcotic drug. Be made a reference to the seizure memo which is available in the case diary. Shri Desai submitted that bail application be dismissed. 7. There cannot be any debate now in view of the Supreme Court judgment that the accused would be entitled to get bail only if he brings his case for getting the bail within four corners of provisions of S. 37 of NDPS Act - (1) (B). Shri Desai submitted that bail application be dismissed. 7. There cannot be any debate now in view of the Supreme Court judgment that the accused would be entitled to get bail only if he brings his case for getting the bail within four corners of provisions of S. 37 of NDPS Act - (1) (B). Provisions of S. 37 (1) (B) provides that- "No person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act, shall be released on bailor his own bond unless (i) The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) Where Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bai1." At this juncture, provisions of S. 37 (2) will have to be also considered which provides "The limitation on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail" In view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, now an enquiry cannot be made in respect of compliance of provisions of S.50 of NDPS Act only because that is a matter pertaining to the trial and the prosecution may lead the evidence for the purpose of proving the compliance of provisions of S. 50. There is no restriction on other enquiry as it cannot be there, because the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused is not guilty of offence punishable under provisions of NDPS Act. "Satisfaction" cannot be without proper inquiry for locating such material which will point towards innocence of accused. 8. Shri Khan pointed out that he is not arguing this bail application by taking advantage on the point of non-compliance of S. 50 of NDPS Act. However, he pointed that at this stage the material which has been brought on record by investigating agency on point of possession will have to be considered. 9. 8. Shri Khan pointed out that he is not arguing this bail application by taking advantage on the point of non-compliance of S. 50 of NDPS Act. However, he pointed that at this stage the material which has been brought on record by investigating agency on point of possession will have to be considered. 9. When the bail application comes before the Court, Court will have to make necessary inquiry for the purpose of concluding that' 'it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence." The Court will have to make necessary enquiry for coming to the conclusion that accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. For the purpose of satisfying, the Court will have to find out, so far as present case is concerned, whether applicant was in exclusive possession of narcotic drug. If that is not done, the Court will not be in a position to come to the conclusion to the extent of 'SATISFACTION'. It is to be noted that word 'POSSESSION' always implies (1) knowledge of the article which a person is possessing (2) dominion over it. It is necessary for the prosecution to bring such material before the Court to show that the accused inducted for an offence happens to be in exclusive possession 'of the contraband article', because in view of S. 36 knowledge is presumed. Even then prosecution cannot be exonerated from bringing it to the notice of Court that the accused was in exclusive possession of narcotic drug. It is pertinent to note that it is a case when the investigating agency visited the said house, husband of applicant ran away and applicant was found and when she was apprehended narcotic drug was seized from that house. The panchnama of seizure shows that on taking search, the raiding party found that the opium was stored in polythene bag which was kept in a vessel like jar which was kept on a cupboard. It no where mentions that applicant Zeenatbee produced said polythene bag. 9. The panchnama of seizure shows that on taking search, the raiding party found that the opium was stored in polythene bag which was kept in a vessel like jar which was kept on a cupboard. It no where mentions that applicant Zeenatbee produced said polythene bag. 9. When an accused is making a prayer for bail, qua an offence punishable under NDPS Act, he can produce such material for the purpose of satisfying the Court that he is entitled to get bail under provisions of S. 37 of NDPS Act, or he may refer to the material which has been collected by the investigating agency itself. In the present case the applicant has produced the copy of the plaint which shows that the father-in-law of present applicant has filed a suit against the tenant for evicting him; so also the applicant has filed copies of the extract of property register of Municipal Council which shows that said house was owned by the father-in-law of the applicant. Shri Khan has placed reliance on the papers of investigation for the purpose of submitting that there is no material to indicate that applicant was in possession of the said house. The possession implies exclusiveness which relates to 'dominion' over the contraband article. In the present case it is the prosecution case itself that when the raiding party visited the said house both the applicant and her husband were present there and by seeing the members of raiding party, her husband ran away. When that is so, unless contrary is shown, it cannot be said that applicant was in exclusive possession of the said house. The said house belongs to her father-in-law and at the time of raid, her husband was present there but he ran away. When the house is owned by her father-in-law and at the time of raid, her husband was present, it will have to be presumed unless there is material contrary to prove, that either her father-in-law or her husband was in possession of the said house. Had it been a case where the applicant produced the narcotic drug, then it would be a different thing. In this case the drug has been seized from almirah on which it was kept in a polythene bag which was kept in a vessel like jar. 10. Had it been a case where the applicant produced the narcotic drug, then it would be a different thing. In this case the drug has been seized from almirah on which it was kept in a polythene bag which was kept in a vessel like jar. 10. It is pertinent to note that in S.37, the words which are used are 'there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence'. I put emphasis on words reasonable grounds and for believing. The Court should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe. The Court should not expect such material to the point of "proving". It is to be noted that the NDPS Act S.37 provides for bail to accused. Had it been the intention of legislature to deny the right of bail to accused, such provision would have been made in the Act. Such provision in respect of S.18 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been made in respect of anticipatory bail. 11. It is true that in some cases, the prosecution may lead evidence for explaining the circumstances. When the investigation done by the investigating agency is itself allowing the Court to have a reasonable relief on reasonable ground that accused is not 'guilty of any offence' punishable under provisions of NDPS Act, as required by S. 37 NDPS Act, in my opinion the accused is entitled to get the bail. If that is not so, in every case without' 'enquiry" in respect of important factors connected with trial, the accused will have to suffer the detention in the custody till his trial is over. The experience tells that witnesses who are to be examined by the prosecution do not turn up for evidence at appropriate time which results in longer detention of the accused. It cannot be ignored. It is not a case of the prosecution that if the applicant is released on bail, she would commit the offence punishable under NDPS Act or she would abscond or she is hardened criminal. Thus, summing up all, in the present case, I come to the conclusion that the applicant, who happens to be the wife of Sabir Ahmed, is entitled to get bail in view of provisions of S. 437 Cr.P.C. and S. 37 NDPS Act. 12. Thus, bail application is allowed. Thus, summing up all, in the present case, I come to the conclusion that the applicant, who happens to be the wife of Sabir Ahmed, is entitled to get bail in view of provisions of S. 437 Cr.P.C. and S. 37 NDPS Act. 12. Thus, bail application is allowed. The applicant is released on bail on furnishing security to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand). She may furnish security with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. Security is to be furnished before CJM Ratlam in respect of Crime No.116/96. The applicant shall not – (1) threaten, contact or induce any of the prosecution witnesses, (2) commit any offence punishable under NDPS Act, 1985, (3) leave India till trial is over. C.C. On payment.