ORDER : S. Pujahari, J. 1. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners & the Learned Counsel for the State. The Petitioners in this case have been indicted in C.T. Case No. 172 of 2014, arising out of Padmapur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2014, pending in the court of the Learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rayagada & the offence alleged against them is punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act"). 2. The prosecution allegation against the Petitioners is that on 14.10.2014 at about 4.30 a.m., the S.I. of Police, Kenduguda Police Outpost under Padampur Police Station along with other Police staff while conducting patrol duty, intercepted a vehicle, i.e., a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. OR 07D-8886 at Mandiguda Chowk & on search, they found two HDPE bags, each containing ten Kgs. of 'Ganja' in the dickey of the said vehicle. It is alleged that the present Petitioners were there in the said vehicle including owner-cum-driver - Dama Majhi, but he could manage to escape from the spot. After conducting all formalities, police seized the aforesaid 'Ganja', apprehended the Petitioners & another & forwarded them to the Court as they alleged to have committed offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The prayer for bail of the Petitioners having been rejected by the Learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Rayagada, this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed for their release on bail. It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that since in this case the owner himself was driving the vehicle & the Petitioners were the bona fide passengers in the said vehicle, they cannot be attributed with the conscious possession of 'Ganja' in the vehicle which is a sine-qua-non to fasten the criminal liability under the Act. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the Petitioners deserves sympathetic consideration, more particularly when they have no chance of abscondence or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. 3. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the Petitioners deserves sympathetic consideration, more particularly when they have no chance of abscondence or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. 3. Learned Counsel for the State, however, drawing notice of this Court to the facts that the offence alleged is an offence against the Society & prima-facie material is there disclosing that the Petitioners were involved in an offence of such nature which provides stringent punishment &, as such, he does not deserve to be released on bail, more particularly when Section 37(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act provides that no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A & also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence & that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, which satisfaction is difficult to record in this case with the available materials on record. 4. From the mandate of Section 37(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act, it appears that the limitation provided to grant bail for the offences involving commercial quantity is in addition to the limitations for grant of bail provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vrs. Dilip Pralhad Namade, reported in (2004) 3 S.C.C. 619 , have taken note of the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vrs. Thamisharasi & held as follows; "9. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 imposes limitations on granting of bail in addition to those provided under the Code. The two limitations are: (1) an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor % to oppose the bail application, & (2) satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence & that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. 10. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far as the present Respondent accused is concerned, are: (1) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, & (2) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative & not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It 'contemplates' substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts & circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence & he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This nature of embargo seems to have been envisaged keeping in view, the deleterious nature of the offence, necessities of public interest & the normal tendencies of the persons involved in such network to pursue their activities with greater vigour & make hay when at large. In the case at hand the High Court seeks to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37& transgressed the limitations statutorily imposed in allowing bail. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act." 5. From the aforesaid law laid down, it appears that when a question of grant of bail of a person accused of commission of offence under the N.D.P.S. Act arises on merit if the quantity of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic substance appears to be commercial one, then the Court without complying the mandate of Section 37(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act should not release him on bail. 6. But, the limitation of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act applies in a case where the quantity of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic substance involved is of commercial quantity. 6. But, the limitation of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act applies in a case where the quantity of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic substance involved is of commercial quantity. The materials available on record must prima-facie disclose the indictment of the Petitioners in an offence involving commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic substance in order to attract the limitations of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Mere registration of a case for commission of offence involving commercial quantity does not attract per se the limitation of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. "Commercial quantity" has been defined in Section 2(viia) of the N.D.P.S. Act as thus; "2(viia). "commercial quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs & psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette." 7. In this regard, the Notification of the Central Government which has been made in exercise of the power conferred by Section 2(viia) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 on 19.10.2001 vide S.0.1055(E) in case of 'Ganja' of 20 Kgs. In such view of the matter, it can very well be said that quantity of 'Ganja' seized in this case being 20 Kgs., the same is not greater than the quantity specified in the aforesaid Notification. Therefore, in this case, there is no material to show that the Petitioners are prima-facie indicted in an offence involving commercial quantity, but they are involved in an offence less than commercial quantity & more than small quantity. Hence, the limitation as provided in Section 37(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act for grant of bail has no application to this case. 8. From the materials available on record, it would go to show that 20 Kgs. of 'Ganja' was seized when the same was being transported in the dickey of the vehicle which was then being driven by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle who fled away. The Petitioners were allegedly there in the said vehicle. Investigation in this case has substantially progressed. There is no material to show that the Petitioners are likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts & submissions made, especially the fact that Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act has got no application to the present case & also the circumstances in which the Petitioners said to have been U.C.C. Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts & submissions made, especially the fact that Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act has got no application to the present case & also the circumstances in which the Petitioners said to have been U.C.C. Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. C.O.C.T. Orissa. CTC. indicted in this case', substantial progress of investigation & hardly any material being there to suggest that the Petitioners are likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail, I am of the view that they deserve to be released on bail. Hence, the Petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on each of them furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000.00 (twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter with the conditions that they shall appear in person before the Court in seisin over the matter on each date, to which the case against them stands posted & shall not leave the jurisdiction of Padmapur Police Station without the leave of the Court concerned. Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of being allowed. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.