C. P. MISHRA, J. This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant accused - Bhagirath Tiwari who has committed an offence under Section 8/18/22 N. D. P. S. Act vide case Crime No. 467 of 2002, P. S. Soron, district Etah. 2. There is recovery of 15 gms. Smack from the pocket of the accused-applicant by the police party while patrolling on 13-7- 2002 at 4. 30 a. m. at Somowar Ghat near Roadways Bus Stand. 3. It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to village party bandi and there is no public witness in the recovery memo whereas large numbers of persons were present on the public place at that time and the compliance of Section 50 N. D. P. S. Act has also not been made by the police in this connection and further submitted that the applicant is an old person of aged about 62 years and he is not previous convict. 4. Learned A. G. A. has, however, challenged the claims and contentions of the applicant by submitting that the provisions of Section 37 (1) (b) to be a bar of such release on bail applied by the applicant in this connection. 5. For this, Sri A. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri D. S. Mishra, a Senior Counsel who has also made his submissions regarding said legal position in this connection on the basis of the recent judgments given by this Court in Abdul Aziz v. State of U. P. , 2002 (1) JIC page 867 (All); Rajesh Singh v. State of U. P. , 2002 (1) JIC page 637 (All) and Ishtiyak Ali alias Shera v. State of U. P. , 2002 CBC 522. He has also placed reliance on case law of Orissa High Court, Rupadhar Patel v. State of Orissa, 2002 (2) Crimes page 223; Orissa High Court and Smt. Padma Mishra v. State of Uttaranchal, 2002 (2) JIC page 39 (Uttaranchal) High Court. Relying upon the aforesaid case laws, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the amendment incorporated in Section 37 of the Act, the offence under Sections 19, 24 and 27-A of the Act, the provision for bail has been given in the Cr. P. C. will also apply. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid case laws, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the amendment incorporated in Section 37 of the Act, the offence under Sections 19, 24 and 27-A of the Act, the provision for bail has been given in the Cr. P. C. will also apply. 6. This position is very much clear on the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of 37 (b) of the Act which read as under : "no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless : (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the 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 bail. (2) the limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail. " 7. The above provision its bare perusal in Section 37 clearly go to show that the provisions of the Act will prevail over the provisions of Cr. P. C. only to the extent that the offences under the Act shall be cognizable and regarding consideration of bail for offence under Sections 19, 24 and 27-A only. In view of that, the clear provisions incorporated in the Act after the amendment the provisions of Cr. P. C. will be applicable for consideration of bail for any such offences other than the offences for which this provision is applicable for granting bail otherwise to the persons involved therein case they are covered by that provisions of the offences mentioned in that section. 8. Considering the aforesaid legal position which has also been shown in the aforesaid case laws as referred to above for which reliance has been placed therein the matter regarding consideration of bail can very well be considered as per provisions of Cr. P. C. as the case may be and I find force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicant. 9. P. C. as the case may be and I find force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicant. 9. As regards the applicants case for bail, it is evident that there is recovery of 15 gms. Smack which is less than the commercial quantity as mentioned in the Government Notification issued in this regard. Further that, in spite of information received prior to the arrest of the applicant by the police, there is no public witness to witness the alleged fact of recovery. Besides that, there is an application given about illegal arrest made by the police prior to his arrest shown in this case vide Annexure-II to the affidavit. There is no previous criminal history so as to show that he had indulged in the post. Besides that, the report was lodged by S. H. O. Sri Shiv Ratan Singh and its investigation was entrusted to S. S. I.-Sri Subhash Chandra who was working under him in the said police station and as it was held in the case of Ishtiyaq Ali alias Shera v. State of U. P. , 2002 CBC 522 (supra), the investigation of the case was carried by his subordinate of the same police station does not appear to be proper and justified and therefore, the investigation lacks its independence also. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants case is fit for bail. 11. Let the accused applicant named above be released on bail in the above noted case crime, subject to his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Bail granted. .