JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 20(b), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered in NCBF No.48/1/11/2017/BZU of respondent Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.7.2017 at about 6.30 hours complainant received credible information that three persons including one lady were waiting at the underpass of flyover at hoskote and they were carrying large quantity of ganja in bags and the complainant after obtaining the permission from Superintendent, NCB, Bengaluru Zonal Unit along with lady officer, carried all necessary equipment and came to said place along with two independent witnesses and conducted the search and seized the ganja totally weighing 60 kgs and drawn samples of 24 grams of ganja and brought the seized ganja along with accused persons and lodged the complaint, on the basis of which, case was registered for the above said offences. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the seizure mahazar the seized material description is mentioned as ganja plants, which includes even roots and mud contained in the roots. It is not specifically mentioned as to which part of the said plants were weighed at the time of seizure mahazar. He has also submitted that mandatory requirement of NDPS Act were not complied with. Petitioners are innocent and there is a false implication in the said case. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that as per the seizure mahazar flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plants were seized from the possession of the petitioners. The matter is still under investigation. The alleged offences are serious in nature. At this stage, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides at the bar. 7. The alleged offences are serious in nature. At this stage, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides at the bar. 7. In the complaint averments and other prosecution material there is no specific allegation that after receipt of credible information the complainant immediately reduced the same into writing in the station house diary to comply the requirement of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which is mandatory. So far as conducting search of ganja is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not complied with. However, Section 50 of the Act could be made applicable only in case of personal seizure of contraband material, but in this case, ganja was seized from the bag. As mentioned in the seizure mahazar the total quantity of the ganja seized is 60 kgs. So from each of the petitioners it is 20 kgs. No doubt, it is a commercial quantity as mentioned in the schedule to NDPS Act. However, the said material has been seized under the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and nothing further is to be seized from their possession. The petitioners have undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor during the course of his arguments submitted that investigation is still going on, as such, petitioners cannot be considered for grant of bail. However, if presence of petitioners is required before the Investigating Officer, stringent conditions could be imposed while considering them for bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. However, if presence of petitioners is required before the Investigating Officer, stringent conditions could be imposed while considering them for bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 20(b), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered in NCBF No.48/1/11/2017/BZU of respondent Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. iii. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court regularly. iv. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned investigating agency for further investigation and interrogation if any, once in a month, till completion of investigation.