ORDER: The above petitions were filed on behalf of the petitioners/ accused in C.C. Nos.74 and 75 of 1997 in the court below, seeking the relief of enlargement on bail for the offences under Secs.8(c) read with 21 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. On intelligence, the respondent had raided the house bearing Door No.21, situated in Alagiri Street, M.G.R. Nagar, Chennai, at about 13.15 hours on 18.1.1997 and recovered the contraband of herein to the weighment of 600 grams from the said house and consequently, Mohammed Fathima and Jaffar Ali were arrested and out of whom, Jaffar Ali was released by this Court oh bail during the month of May, 1997, but however, Mohammed Fathima had not been released for the reason that she was a Srilanka national. At about 16.00 hours on the same day, namely, 18.1.1997, a search was also made by the respondent in the premises situated at No. 1 -A, Nancy Street, Purasawakkam, Madras town, and the contraband of herein to the weighment of 520 grams was recovered from underneath of sofa and consequently, Jahufar Sathiq and Kamza Zackiya, being the husband and wife, the petitioners herein, were arrested for the reason that they were the residents of the said house Following this, at about 18.00 hours on 18.1.1997, the respondent made a search of the premises bearing Door No. 14, situated in Kisthappa Mudali Street, Purasawakkam, and recovered the contraband of 20 grams, of heroin, from inside a table drawer and consequently, Meeran Mohideen @ Wapa and Syed Ibrahim, both father-in-law and son-in-law, the residents of the said premises were arrested. The seized contrabands above referred to were recovered under the cover of mahazars prepared and attested by the respondent and witnesses and stated to be in consonance with the rules and provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act 3. Subsequently, the seized contrabands under the cover of mahazars, appears to have been produced before the court on 19.1.1997 and the court after remanding the arrested persons to the judicial custody returned the seized goods with the direction to be produced before the proper court and the above order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 19.1.1997. The statement of witnesses including the accused were recorded duly in consonance with the procedural law by the respondent, which almost, the major portion of it, appears to have been done by Mr. The statement of witnesses including the accused were recorded duly in consonance with the procedural law by the respondent, which almost, the major portion of it, appears to have been done by Mr. Suresh Babu, one of the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Madras, and the rest of the part were done by Mr.Mohan and Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, other officers. 4. While seeking the bail for the above four persons, one of the contentions raised by Mr.B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, was that the major portion of the investigation, namely, conducting the search, making the seizures under the cover of mahazars, recording the complaint itself, all were done by Mr. Suresh Babu, one and the same Officer, and hence, the whole proceedings initiated by him seems to be a prejudicial one and cannot be recognised by law, as held in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana Megha Singh v. State of Haryana , A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2339. It was a case in which, a pistol was recovered by a Head Constable and in pursuance thereof, investigation was done by him, including the filing of the charge-sheet under the provisions of the T.A.D.A. Act and Arms Act. It has been held therein, that such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to, so that there may not be any occasion to suspect the fair and impartial investigation. Several other case laws held by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana, Bhagwan Singh Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana, Bhagwan Singh J. T. (1996) 2 S.C. 234, Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan , A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 985 and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nanha v. State of U.P. Nanha v. State of U.P. , 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 were also relied on, for the position that since one of the several accused has been released on bail for the similar offence and charges, bail can be granted on the basis of party. 5. 5. While counteracting the said position on behalf of Mr.P. Rajamanickam, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent, Mr.Prakash, had relied on two case laws held in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan , (1996)3 Crimes 57 and State of Punjab v. Dharminder Kumar State of Punjab v. Dharminder Kumar (1995) 3 S.C.C. (Supp.) 242 alias Kaka, for the position that granting bail for an accused for the alleged commission of offences under the Indian Penology cannot be made applicable or considered in pari materia with the cases coming under the purview and provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act for the rigour of Sec.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is held by the Apex Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and others Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and others , 1991 L. W. (Crl.) 53 and in the light of the further ratio held by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh , J.T. (1994)2 S. C 108. 6. As seen from the above, it is noticed that the factual aspects of the ease cited and relied on by Mr. B. Kumar, in the above rulings, are for the different and distinct offences under the provisions of the T.A.D.A. Act or the Indian Penal Code in respect of the bail applications, which squarely comes under the purview of Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but however on the facts of the instant case, as held by the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and others Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and others , 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 53Sec.439 of the Code is being controlled and restricted by Sec.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which has got more potency than the power to be exercised by this Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is the settled position of law, that in a case for the alleged offences under the N.D.P.S. Act, unless and until it is shown that either the police or the Narcotic Control Bureau or the investigating agency, while unearthing the offence committed by the accused, committed any serious lapse in the name of violations of the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act likely to result in holding the accused not guilty during the trial, the mischief of Sec.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act cannot be overlooked. 7. 7. The question of parity as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, can ever be the sole ground for granting bail even when bail applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier rejected is allowed and co-accused is released on bail. Even then, the court has to satisfy itself on a consideration of more materials place and investigation done so far, whether sufficient grounds for releasing the rest of the accused on bail are in existence or not. This would mean, that the case of an accused has to be examined individually and distinctively and simply because one of the co-accused has been granted bail, it cannot be the sole criteria for granting the bail to the rest of the accused. That apart, the offences involved in the instant case fall under Secs.8(c), 21 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the investigation is over. Admittedly, the offences involved in the instant case are totally distinct and different from the one under the Indian Penalology or other Statutes. Therefore, in the context of Sec.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. I am totally unable to persuade myself to accept the two contentions raised by Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. On the other hand, I have to necessarily endorse the contentions made by and on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Prakash, and Mr. P. Rajamanickam learned Special Public Prosecutor. 8. Then, the next question, in so far as these bail petitions on behalf of the petitioners are concerned, that remains to be seen is, whether there are any violations of the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, entitling the accused to be enlarged on bail on going through the factual aspects depicted through the typed set produced along with the bail applications, it is worthwhile to notice, that three searches were conducted by the respondent at three different times and different occasions and different places. Consequently, the residents or the inmates of the houses, as above narrated, were arrested and the contraband of herein were seized under the cover of mahazars on 18.1.1997 itself by-following all the formalities and the mahazars were prepared and completed by Mr. Suresh Babu of the respondent wing. After having perused the entire typed-set, it cannot be denied that the material and major portion of the investigation was done by Mr. Suresh Babu of the respondent wing. After having perused the entire typed-set, it cannot be denied that the material and major portion of the investigation was done by Mr. Suresh Babu including the filing of the complaint but only a minor part was played by other Officers by name Mr. Mohan and Mrs. Vijayalakshmi. In say so technically under the above circumstances, it is beyond the scope to say, that everything has been done by Mr. Suresh Babu only and that therefore, the whole investigation done by him and the proceedings started by him became vitiated. As I have already referred to, I am not in a position to digest the above contention. 9. The seized goods duly packed with the seal and Code number put by Mr.Suresh Babu, appears to have been produced before the Magistrate indisputably on 19.1.1 997 and the Learned Magistrate after having remanded the accused injudicial custody returned the seized contraband produced before him to be presented before the competent court dealing with the Narcotic Cases. It is also noticed at this juncture, that the seized goods after duly packed before producing in the court, was kept in the godown kept and maintained by the Narcotic Control Bureau with the pack Code Serial No.11 and has been taken from the godown and produced before the learned Magistrate as above referred to already and after the direction given by the learned Magistrate, who appears to have no jurisdiction to go on with the trial of the case for one reason or other, it is not known where these seized goods had been kept by the respondent and its staff until it was produced before the proper court on 24.1.1997 at 5 p.m. My perusal of the entire typed-set reveals that no documents or materials are available to show, where the seized goods had been kept. If they had been kept in the godown again, in what serial number of the pack it was kepte and if taken out again out the godown, under what serial number it was taken out and why they were produced only on 24.1.1997e are all the facts which would come to light only during the trial. However, this lacuna amounts to a chronic delay of exactly five days in sending the property to the court of competent jurisdiction. 10. However, this lacuna amounts to a chronic delay of exactly five days in sending the property to the court of competent jurisdiction. 10. By a reading of Sec.53 on the one hand and Sec.55 on the other hand and taking their construed technical meaning, even with the straight interpretation, for the above said factual aspects. I am fully constrained to hold that the respondent has not followed the mandatory obligations spelt out clearly in Secs.53 and 55 of the Act and the consequence of which, may lead to a conclusion by a Court of law after the full trial adverse to the respondent's case. It is therefore, under the circumstances, after having considered the whole gamut of the case, for the reasoning of committing violations of the mandatory provisions in Secs.53 and 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act, I am constrained to hold that the instant case, may not come within the rigour of Sec.37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and for the said reasonings, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners under Sec.439 of the Code, with the following conditions; (1) Petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Act Cases Madras; (2) Petitioners shall report before the respondent daily between 10 and 11 a.m. until further orders; and (3) They shall reside within the Corporation limits of Madras City and on no account they shall move out of the town without the permission of this Court. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. B.S.-----Petitions allowed.