JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 38/2017 of Police Station Rathanjana, Distt. Pratapgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is clear from the statement of Bhagwanlal (PW-11) the then SHO of Police Station Rathanjana, Distt. Pratapgarh that 3 bags containing poppy husk weighing 76 kgs were recovered and the Seizure Officer first took 200 gms of poppy husk from each bag and mixed the same. The Seizure Officer thereafter took two samples of 300 gms each from that mixture. Thus, it is clear that the Seizure Officer did not collect separate samples from each bag. It is also submitted that the I.O. has not stated that the test by the U.N. Kit was carried out on each bag before taking small quantity of poppy husk for samples. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Netram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163 has argued that this Court has held that if the samples from each bag containing poppy husk/poppy straw have not been collected and test by U.N. Kit has not been conducted on each bag and if the Seizure Officer has taken out some quantity of narcotic drug from each bag and after mixing the same has taken out some portion for sample, then, the same is not in conformity with the Standing Instruction No. 1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, particularly, Instruction No. 1.7 and, as such, it cannot be said that the narcotic contraband recovered in the matter is of commercial quantity or above. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. 6. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. 6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, substantial grounds taken in this bail application, taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in Netrams case (supra) and keeping in view the fact that trial of the case is likely to take time, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Mukesh S/o Shri Shantilal Patidar shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 38/2017 of Police Station Rathanjana, Distt. Pratapgarh provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.