JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. The three petitioners Sakuntala Patel, Nitil Patel and Ashok Kumar Singh have filed the above mentioned bail applications separately in connection with Manamunda P.S. Case No. 149 of 2017 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 433 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Boudh in which charge sheet has been submitted under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereafter ‘N.D.P.S. Act’). Since these bail applications arise out of the same case, with the consent of the respective parties, those were heard analogously and the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. On 17.08.2017 at 01.50 p.m. the informant S.I. of police Gouri Mallik of Manamunda P.S. reported in writing before the I.I.C. of Manamunda P.S. to the effect on that day i.e. 17.08.2017 at about 8.40 a.m., the I.I.C. received reliable information regarding possession and transportation of contraband Ganja in KGN Bus bearing Regd. No. OR 02 AD 4399, which was proceeding towards Manamunda from Boudh side with further information that unless immediate raid/interception was conducted near Krishna Dhaba, Manamunda, the contraband ganja i.e. fruiting and flowering tops of cannabis plants may be shifted to other persons for wrongful gain. As it was not possible to obtain search warrant from the competent authority, it was decided to conduct interception/raid near Krishna Dhaba, Manamunda immediately without search warrant or authorization. The reliable information was entered in police station diary book and intimation was sent to S.P. Boudh/S.D.P.O., Boudh over Cell Phone and those authorities were also intimated through VHF Message. A raiding party was formed consisting of the informant S.I. of police Gouri Mallick and other police officials who arrived at the designated spot and at about 09.05 a.m. the KGN Bus bearing Regd. No. OR 02 AD 4399 arrived there. The driver, conductor and helper got down from the bus and the informant intimated them regarding the information received and also requested them to assist in the operation. On search of the bus, two gunny bags suspected to be containing ganja and one air bag was found inside the bus near seat nos.21, 22 and 23 where two men and one woman were sitting who claimed the ownership of the bags. Other co-passengers also corroborated the claim of those two men and one woman regarding their ownership with the bags. Other co-passengers also corroborated the claim of those two men and one woman regarding their ownership with the bags. On being asked, those two men and one woman gave their identities and they are the petitioners in this case. Written notice under section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was served on the petitioners who expressed their willingness to be searched in presence of the Executive Magistrate. On requisition, the Executive Magistrate arrived at the spot and a weighman was also called to the spot who came with sealing, packing and stitching materials. After the requisite formalities, the personal search of the petitioners were taken separately and thereafter the contents of the gunny bags were unloaded and its weight was taken. The first gunny bag was containing net weight of 20 kg. 130 grams of ganja and the second gunny bag was containing net weight of 16 kg. 135 grams of ganja and thus the total weight of ganja was found to be 36 kg. 265 grams. The samples were taken from the two gunny bags in duplicate and it was packed, sealed and the seizure lists were prepared. The personal brass seal of the informant was handed over in the zima of the weighman under zimanama. Since the petitioners were found in conscious and exclusive possession of ganja of commercial quantity, the first information report was drawn up and the petitioners were arrested. During course of investigation, the sample packets were sent for chemical analysis to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and after finding prima facie case regarding commission of offence, charge sheet was submitted under sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the ganja was seized from a bus where other passengers were there, it cannot be said that it was seized from the exclusive/conscious possession of the petitioners. It is further contended that the petitioners have been falsely entangled in the case and there is no clinching material against them and there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the evidence and therefore, the bail applications may be favourably considered. Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand submitted that it is a case of seizure of commercial quantity of ganja and therefore, in view of the bar under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand submitted that it is a case of seizure of commercial quantity of ganja and therefore, in view of the bar under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. It is further contended that the petitioners belonged to State of Madhya Pradesh and once they are released on bail, it would be very difficult to ensure their attendance at the time of trial. 4. Law is well settled that a person accused of offences under sections 19 or 24 or 27-A of the N.D.P.S. Act and also for offences involving commercial quantity should not be released on bail unless the mandatory conditions as provided under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act that there are reasonable grounds for holding that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied and that to after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release. The legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act must be construed in a pragmatic manner. It cannot be construed in such a way so as to negate the right of a party to obtain bail which is otherwise a valuable right for all practical purposes. The conditions are cumulative and 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 and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The non-obstante clause in the section and sub-section (2) thereof makes it clear that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the N.D.P.S. Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but also it is also subject to the restrictions placed by sub-clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the ganja was seized from a bus where other passengers were there, it cannot be said that it was seized from the exclusive/conscious possession of the petitioners is too difficult to be accepted. The position where the two gunny bags were found, the sitting position of the petitioners inside the bus, the admission of ownership of the gunny bags by the petitioners, the statements of the co-passengers regarding ownership of the gunny bags with the petitioners are prima facie sufficient to negate the contention raised. A person carrying a bag of contraband articles in any public conveyance does not lose the exclusive/conscious possession over such bag. When somebody is carrying a bag in a public conveyance, it is to be presumed that he is aware of its contents unless contrary is proved. Nobody can handle such bag without his permission which shows that he is in exclusive possession of the bag. 5. In view of the prima facie material to show that the petitioners were carrying commercial quantity of ganja in two gunny bags in the bus and failure of the learned counsel for the petitioners to cross the hurdle under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, all the bail applications stand rejected.