ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.122/2016 of Devalagangapur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ for short). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, On 02.09.2016 in between 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., the respondent police on credible information have conducted the raid on the land of one Gurunath situated within the limits of Chinmalli village wherein they have noticed that the petitioner has grown 162 ganja plants in between the sugarcane crop. Thereafter the same was uprooted and when it was weighed it was weighing 518 kgs. The same was seized by following the procedure laid down in the law and a case was registered against the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence alleged against him and a false case has been registered against him. It is contended that the raiding party has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the law and already the entire investigation has been completed, hence, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. It is also contended that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Chinmalli village, he is an agriculturist and he has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State vehemently contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has grown the ganja plants deliberately without there being any permit or licence. He has also contended that the petitioner has grown the ganja more than commercial quantity. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State vehemently contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has grown the ganja plants deliberately without there being any permit or licence. He has also contended that the petitioner has grown the ganja more than commercial quantity. He has further contended that at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. 7. As could be seen from the complaint, it reveals that the raiding party went to the land of one Gurunath and there they noticed that 162 ganja plants have been grown in between the Sugarcane crop. In the presence of panch witnesses, the same have been uprooted and when they were weighing, they have weighed the plants along with sticks and at that time it was weighing 518 kgs. The canabi or ganja includes only the flower, stem, seeds and buds. Apart from that the other things ought not to have been weighed by the investigating officer at the time of seizing the said articles. In that context, the weight of ganjas has came to 518 kgs. By looking into the complaint, it does not indicate what will be the actual weight of the ganja as contemplated under the law. In that light, I am of the considered view that Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a hurdle to grant the bail. Leave apart this, when the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, when the petitioner is said to be an agriculturist, he has got both movable and immovable properties, when he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and already the seizer procedure has been completed and the major portion of the investigation has been over, under such circumstances, I feel that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail by imposing some stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice and it would also safeguard the interest of the prosecution. 8. 8. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two 7 Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; ii. The petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; iii. The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer once in fortnight till the charge sheet is filed; iv. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.