JUDGMENT 1. - The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the right of life and liberty of a person is sacrosanct and it should not be permitted to be interfered with. He has placed reliance on Supreme Court decision reported in Criminal Law Reporter SC 1980 "Gurbachan Singh v. State". Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court the case of the petitioner deserves consideration. 2. In a case where the petitioner was an earlier license holder of poppy husk. If at all he is found in possession of 12 gms. of opium, then it should be presumed that it was for his personal consumption. In that event no offence under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act would be made out against the petitioner. The offence would be under Section 8/27 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The sentence which may be awarded under Section 8/27 is of one year rigorous imprisonment. That being the position, the rigour of Section 37 would not come into operation. Since the recovery has been made from a heap of dust, the petitioner should be favoured with an order of anticipatory bail. 3. The learned counsel for State has urged that at the time of recovery, the Investigating Officer came to know of the fact that the petitioner used to manufacture tablets known as 'madak' tablets and trade in those tablets which are derivatives of opium. Certain implements and spoon etc. have been recovered stained with opium and in this background, not only it can be said that opium was recovered from the residence of the petitioner but certain such implements have been recovered which are used for preparation of tablets containing opium as a substance. The statement of landlord was read to the Court and it has been stated by the landlord that he prohibited the petitioner in indulging in manufacture of the tablets and dealing with tablets but he has not stopped in trading and manufacture of the tablets which are the derivatives of opium. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that offence under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act is not made out and the provisions of Section 37 would not come into operation. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that offence under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act is not made out and the provisions of Section 37 would not come into operation. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. As and when, there are allegations that an accused is indulging in trading and manufacture of opium derivatives, prima facie it can be stated that offence under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act is made out. In the instant case, recovery has been made from the house possessed by the petitioner though of a small quantity, but apart from the small quantity of opium, certain implements have been recovered which were stained with opium as stated by the Investigating Officer from his personal experience and such implements were used in manufacturing of tablets known as 'madak' tablets which are derivatives of opium. The landlord in his statement further stated that he prohibited the petitioner from trading and manufacturing of tablets out of opium, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act would be made out against the petitioner. That being the position, the prohibition contained in Section 37-A(2) would come into operation. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while he will be on bail because he was addicted to opium as he was an earlier license holder of consuming poppy husk and one who is habitual of consuming opium, if he indulges in this kind of activity then a presumption arises that he is likely to commit an offence while on bail. 5. In view thereof, no case for anticipatory bail is made out in this case No interference is called for. The bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. having no force is hereby dismissed.Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. Rejected. *******