ORDER : 1. By medium of this application, petitioners seek bail in their favour in F.I.R No. 67/2017, registered against them at Police Station, Khansahab, Badgam, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 8/15 Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. 2. The petitioners have stated that the they were arrested on 27-07-2017 in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. They have further stated that because of sheer animosity, the police authorities have implicated them wrongly. It is stated that they are innocent and the alleged recovery has been foisted on them. Besides that, it is contended that the mandate of sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act has been followed in breach. 3. It is further submitted that there is no witness to the recovery. As per the statement of constable Mohammad Iqbal, the search operation was conducted in presence of Dy.SP. The other witnesses have contradicted him and the search and seizure has not been made in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further stated that the settled position of law is that when nothing is recovered from the possession of the accused and the alleged recovery is foisted on them and the statements of the witnesses do not corroborate with each other, grant of bail is the rule. It is further stated that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are police personnel and all of them have given contradictory statements. It is further stated that the Court below has failed to consider the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the bail application has been wrongly dismissed. It is also contended that only an intermediatory quantity of poppy straw has been seized from the petitioners and, therefore, the rigor of the provisions contained in the NDPS Act does not apply to the case on hand. It is also pleaded that they have deep roots in the society and if they are enlarged on bail, they will not flee from justice. 4. The respondents have resisted and controverted the application of the applicants chiefly on the grounds that the recovery was made from the possession of the petitioners. They have committed a heinous offence. The menace of the illicit drugs has eaten into the vitals of the society. It is a crime against the society and the societal concerns have to be guarded with zeal and zest. They have committed a heinous offence. The menace of the illicit drugs has eaten into the vitals of the society. It is a crime against the society and the societal concerns have to be guarded with zeal and zest. The motion so preferred by the petitioners seeking admission to bail in relation to the above referred crime is devoid of any merit and, as such, the same deserves to be rejected, as the quantity of poppy straw seized from them falls within the scales of commercial quantity. 5. The respondents have further stated that the accused were produced before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, and the samples collected, were thereafter sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar (FSL), which confirmed that the seized material is poppy straw. The investigation further revealed the involvement of the petitioners, who had indulged in this illicit act in an organized manner and with conscious mind. It is further stated that the indulgence of the petitioners in such a crime poses a serious threat to the health, wealth and welfare of the people, in particular the young generation. It is also stated that the drug trafficking/trade being highly lucrative, is a great challenge to the society since it has a potential of attracting more and more youth into its fold and thereby destroying the very foundations of the society. In this view of the matter, the trend is to be checked and contained. The respondents have finally stated that since the crime committed by the petitioners falls under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, therefore, in order to prevent them from repeating such a crime, the instant bail application be dismissed, which will further the interests of justice. 6. Heard and considered. 7. What requires to be stated at the outset is that the petitioners moved an application for bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Badgam, and the learned Judge after taking an overall view of the application, came to the conclusion that a commercial quantity of the Poppy Straw has been recovered from their possession and, therefore, they cannot be admitted to bail. The petitioners, have, however, repeated and reiterated that the quantity of the illicit material seized in the case is lesser than a commercial quantity but greater than a smaller quantity and, therefore, they are entitled to bail. 8. The petitioners, have, however, repeated and reiterated that the quantity of the illicit material seized in the case is lesser than a commercial quantity but greater than a smaller quantity and, therefore, they are entitled to bail. 8. The quantity of Poppy Straw (weighing 87 kgs.), recovered from the possession of the petitioners, falls within the limits, bounds and the scales of a commercial quantity to which the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies in all the fours. If a case falls within the scope and definition of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, grant of bail has to be considered on the agility of the said provision in addition to other limitations prescribed under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which reads as follows: "[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bail able;- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail,]." 9. From the perusal of Section 37 quoted above, it is evident that no person can be enlarged on bail, if he is found to be in the possession of a commercial quantity of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act or offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27 A Act unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty of such an offence. These restrictions are provided in addition to the checks and curbs imposed under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law governing the grant of bails. These restrictions are provided in addition to the checks and curbs imposed under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law governing the grant of bails. In the present case, as is reiterated here, the petitioners have been found to be in the possession of 87 kgs. of Poppy Straw. On the basis of the recovery of such a huge quantity of illicit material found in the possession of the petitioners, it can well be said that they are prima facie involved in the commission for the offences aforesaid and there is no reasonable ground to believe that they are not guilty of such offences. The natural or unpresentable human propensity to always eat the forbidden fruits will ever find means and ways to frustrate the laws and rules prohibiting the use of all such stuff. 10. The order of the trial Court dated 31-05-2018, under the shade and cover of which the bail application of the petitioners has been rejected, is a reasoned one. The learned trial court has been right in stating that it is not within the domain and area of the Court to enter into the minute details of the prosecution evidence. The evidence can be analysed to find out the broad probability of the prosecution case and it cannot be sifted to arrive at a conclusion that the offence has not been committed by the accused persons by referring to the contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. Learned trial Court has also opined that as far as the statements of the 06 witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are concerned, the broad probability appears to be compatible with the charge framed against the accused persons and nothing substantial has been brought on record which would dislodge the prosecution case. 11. In view of the preceding analysis, the petition of the petitioners seeking admission of bail, is rejected and the order dated 31st of May, 2018, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Badgam, is upheld. The petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to move an application for the grant of bail in their favour before the trial Court, if fresh cause arises, which shall be decided on its merits. 12. A copy of this order shall be sent to the trial Court.