ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 20(B), 21, 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 14 of Foreigners Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.4/2018. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments is that, one Mr. Manjunath B.S., Police Inspector, Koramangala, has lodged a complaint alleging that on 02.01.2018 at about 1.40 p.m., information alleged to have been received by Inspector of Police, Koramangala Police Station, Bangalore, about selling of the drugs by 3 persons of which one person is an African who were coming near Swabimani Karanji Park, 5th Cross, 4th Block Koramangala, Bangalore. 3. Further averments, on receipt of the information, Inspector of Police arranged a team and collected two panchas, went to the said place at about 3.40 p.m. At about 4.00 p.m., three suspected persons came in auto rickshaw, got down near the park and proceeded towards the park. Immediately on observation and after confirmation they surrounded and apprehended the said persons. On enquiry, they revealed the names and addresses. Thereafter, on conducting the search of the persons they noticed that they were in possession of 12 gms of Hashish and other persons were also possessing 4 kgs of Ganja and another person by name Umesh Kumar also was found with 4 kgs of Ganja. The Ganja as well as other personal belongings were seized under mahazar and submitted. On the basis of which, FIR came to be registered as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and two other accused persons. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Counsel for the petitioner made submission that mandatory requirements of NDPS Act are not complied with in this case. He also submitted that even the qualitative and quantitative reports from the FSL were not obtained within the period prescribed in the Notification by the Central Government. He also submitted, before conducting personal search the requirements of Section 50 of NDPS Act were also not complied with by the respondent-police. It is also his submission that, the alleged quantity of Ganja is below the commercial quantity. He also submitted, before conducting personal search the requirements of Section 50 of NDPS Act were also not complied with by the respondent-police. It is also his submission that, the alleged quantity of Ganja is below the commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted to permit the petitioner to give surety and he further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that they were caught red handed and they were possessing Ganja and Hashish and the same were seized in the presence of Panch Witnesses drawing seizure mahazar at the spot itself. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. 8. Looking to the very complaint, it is not mentioned specifically that, after getting the credible information with reference to the matter, immediately he has made an entry in the station house diary about compliance of Section 42(1) of NDPS Act, so also there is no specific mention that within 72 hours, he has sent the information to his immediate superior officer and obtained permission to proceed further in the matter. Therefore material goes to show that, mandatory requirements under Sections 42 (1) and 42 (2) of NDPS Act are not complied with. Even with regard to seizure of the alleged Ganja is concerned, the material goes to show that, the personal search was conducted for the purpose of seizing the alleged Narcotic drug. Before such seizure and conducting personal search of the petitioner herein, the police ought to have complied with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and it is not done in this case. There is legal duty on the part of the police firstly to explain to the petitioner/accused the requirement to conduct the personal search. He is having legal right to exercise an option whether the search is to be conducted in presence of the Gazzetted Officer or before the Magistrate. The materials on the side of the prosecution will not make out a case as such information given to the petitioner herein about his legal right to exercise the option regarding the personal search. 9. The materials on the side of the prosecution will not make out a case as such information given to the petitioner herein about his legal right to exercise the option regarding the personal search. 9. With regard to coming to the conclusion upon seized material, it is drug which is a prohibited article. So far as the Schedule of NDPS Act is concerned, the standing instruction No.1/88 issued by the Central Government is also not followed in this case. The police ought to have received qualitative as well as quantitative test reports to note weight of the seized Narcotic drugs. But until now, no such reports are placed before the Court. The observation of the standing instruction is also the legal requirement as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund and others reported in 2009 (12) SCC 161 , according to which, fulfillment of the requirements of standing instructions is also mandate of law, which is not complied in this case. Now it cannot be contended that, before getting the test reports, quantity seized were of such a weight and so also it is a narcotic drug. Therefore, in view of these things the restrictions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not come in the way at this stage in considering the bail application of the present petitioner. 10. The petitioner denied the entire allegation made against him and seizure of alleged Narcotic drugs, contending that, there is a false implication with regard to involvement of the petitioner in this case. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable by death or imprisonment for life. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner-accused No.1. 11. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B), 21, 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 14 of Foreigners Act, registered in Crime No. 4/2018, subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and shall furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.