JUDGMENT : B. A. PATIL, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail in Spl.C.C.No.89/2019 (in NCB.F.No.48/1/13/2018/BZU) for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) R/w 21, 23 & 28 of NDPS Act, 1985 pending on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bangalore. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.07.2018 at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant received a credible information that one Nigerian drug trafficker is traveling from Mumbai to Bengaluru by SRS Travels bus bearing registration No.KA-42-A-1418 and he is in possession of substantial quantity of cocaine and he is likely to get down at Kalasipalya bus stop around 10.15 a.m., on 25.07.2018. He informed the said information to his superior officer, secured his team members and tracked the bus route online and found that the said bus will be reaching Tumakuru at 7.45 hours on 25.07.2018. When they went to the toll gate located on Tumakuru road by 6.45 a.m., the said bus came to the toll gate at 9.00 a.m. After confirming the accused is traveling in the said bus, they took the seat next to the accused and kept surveillance on the said person. At about 11.15 a.m., the bus reached the Kalasipalya bus stop and the accused got down from his sleeper berth and immediately the police apprehended him and on personal search, they seized 155.5 grams of cocaine from black colour bag along with travel ticket and other materials and a mahazar was drawn and complaint was registered. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he has not committed any offence and he is falsely implicated in the instant case. It is his further submission that the quantity of the cocaine, which has been seized is not commercial quantity. In order to determine the commercial quantity, prosecution has to take the quantitative and qualitative test as per guidelines 1.18 of Narcotic Control Bureau. It is his further submission that the quantity of the cocaine, which has been seized is not commercial quantity. In order to determine the commercial quantity, prosecution has to take the quantitative and qualitative test as per guidelines 1.18 of Narcotic Control Bureau. Already FSL report has been received and no quantitative test has been made in order to come to the conclusion that the said quantity of the cocaine, which has been seized is more than the commercial quantity. In order to substantiate the said contention, he has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Chukwunanso Ajmamekwe v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.8110/2018 C/w Criminal Petition No.7908/2018 dated 25.02.2019. He also relied upon one more decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. Grace Rai @ Rose v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit in Criminal Petition No.7374/2018 dated 03.04.2019. 5. It is his further submission that the object of the chemical examination and quantitative analysis is to find out as to whether the accused was in possession of the commercial quantity or smaller or less than commercial quantity, so as to know as to what punishment he is liable to be punished. In order to substantiate his contention he relied upon the decision in the case of Inspector of Customs vs. Ms.Daphira Wallang, (2010) ILR(Kar) 190. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused is languishing in jail since long and he has come to India with student visa and he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. It is his further submission that though it is contended in the objection filed by the learned SPP that he is also involved in one more case in Mumbai but name of the accused is different from the present petitioner/accused. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued and submitted that the chemical examination report clearly goes to show that analysis which has been conducted is in positive result and cocaine has been detected in the said material. It is his further submission that quantity of the cocaine, which has been seized is 155.5 grams and it is more than commercial quantity. It is his further submission that quantity of the cocaine, which has been seized is 155.5 grams and it is more than commercial quantity. In order to call it as less than commercial quantity as per schedule, it must be 2 grams if it is small quantity. If it is more than 100 grams, then it will be a commercial quantity. It is his further submission that as per notification dated 18.11.2009, the entire mixture to be taken into consideration for the purpose of coming to the conclusion either the said articles seized is cocaine or not. But he fairly submitted that the said notification has been challenged in the case of Hirasingh & Another vs. Union of India & Another, (2017) 8 SCC 162 and in the said decision issue has been referred to the larger bench and the matter is still subjudice. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused is a foreigner and he was not having any passport and even in his voluntary statement, he has contended that he has involved in one more case in Mumbai and when he was released on bail and the present case has been committed. If he is released on bail, again he may indulge in similar type of criminal activities. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The main contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that the Investigating Agency has not taken the quantitative and qualitative test as per the guidelines of 1.18 of NCB. The analysis of the drug has to be completed within 15 days from the date of receipt of sample and report has to be obtained. For the purpose of brevity, I extract the said instructions which reads as under: 1.18 Expeditious Test Expeditious analysis of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance is of essence to all proceedings of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. In many cases the court may refuse to extend Police/Judicial remand beyond 15 days for absence of a chemical report. Accordingly, it is essential that the analysis is completed and the report dispatched within 15 days from the date of receipt of the sample. However, where quantitative analysis report dispatched within 15 days from the date of receipt of the sample. Accordingly, it is essential that the analysis is completed and the report dispatched within 15 days from the date of receipt of the sample. However, where quantitative analysis report dispatched within 15 days from the date of receipt of the sample. However, where quantitative analysis be longer time. The results of qualitative test should be dispatched to the officer from whom the samples to received within the aforesaid time limit on the original copy of the Test Memo so that court proceedings can be immediately. In the next 15 days the results of qualitative test (purity of the drug) should also be indicated the duplicate test memo and sent to the officer from who the samples were received. 9. The interpretation of the said standing order has been also made by this Court in the case of CHANDRU KUNTHUR RAGHUVEGOWDA vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS in Criminal Petition No.303/2017 at Para No.19, which reads as under:- The report dated January 13, 2017 issued by the Custom House Laboratory, Chennai, shows that the six samples answered the test for presence of Psedoephedrine Hydrochloride. The foot note contained in the report is categorical to the effect that quantitative analysis of the sample was not carried out. Thus, there has been infraction of Standing Instruction No.1/88. Compliance with the Standing Instruction is a requirement of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Bal Mukund and others, supra. 10. The said interpretation has also been made by this Court in the case of INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS vs. MS. DAPHIRA WALLANG, (2010) ILR(Kar) 190 at para Nos. 5 and 6 which read as under:- 5. The object of chemical examination and quantitative analysis is to find out as to whether the accused was in possession of commercial quantity or smaller or less than commercial quantity, so as to know as to what punishment he is liable. If the quantity is of smaller quantity, the punishment is only six months, if it is more than smaller quantity and less than commercial quantity, the punishment is extendable upto 10 years and fine and if it is more than commercial quantity, the punishment is upto 20 years and minimum is 10 years and in case of commercial quantity the investigation can be done upto 180 days. 6. 6. From the provision of the Act it is clear that, the chemical and quantity analysis has to be done at the earliest. Purpose of chemical examination is to find out the contents of Narcotic drug, if the chemical examination is delayed, there is every possibility of substance losing its character and on account of default in doing chemical examination at the earliest, it will result in failure of investigation and to book the accused for the said crime. But it is unfortunate that these matters are not seriously viewed by the authority, and their lapse yield to the benefit of the accused. 11. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs. BAL MUKUND AND OTHERS, (2009) 12 SCC 161 at para Nos. 36 and 37 has observed as under:- 36. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. Standing Instruction 1/88, which had been issued under the Act, lays down the procedure for taking samples. The High Court has noticed that PW 7 had taken samples of 25 gm each from all the five bags and then mixed them and sent to the laboratory. There is nothing to show that adequate quantity from each bag had been taken. It was a requirement in law. 37. There is another infirmity in the prosecution case. Section 55 of the Act reads as under:- 55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.- An officer in charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer in charge of the police station. 12. By going through the above proposition of law while considering the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for considering that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and likely to commit any offence while on bail. 12. By going through the above proposition of law while considering the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for considering that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the above said decisions, even it has been observed that quantitative and qualitative test has been mandated under the guidelines 1.18 of the NCB which is considered to be mandatory. I am not giving any difference of opinion with regard to the said proposition of law. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that instruction 1.18 has not been followed and the quantitative test has not been conducted. 13. As could be seen from the FSL report dated 27.09.2018 it contains that one sealed brown paper envelope sealed with three seals marked as Exhibit S1 which has been sufficient to chemical examination. After opening Exhibit S1, it contains white coloured powdery and solid particulates substance kept in an heat sealed auto press polythene cover and weight including polythene cover was 5.494 gms. The exhibit was analyzed by Scott test, UV-Spectrophotometry and Gas chromatography mass spectrometry(GCMS). 14. The results thus bounded by above methods have been analyzed and the report is given below: Cocaine has been detected in Ex.S.1. 15. The analysis test report clearly goes to show that the said chemical examination was conducted with regard to the white coloured powder and solid particulates substance kept in the heat sealed auto press polythene cover and they have also weighed it and the quantity has been also determined and thereafter, analysis has been made even assuming if polythene cover weighed if it is taken out, then under such circumstances also quantity of the cocaine, which has been seized is more than commercial quantity. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances, when already quantitative and qualitative test have been submitted before the Court then under such circumstances, it cannot be contend that guidelines issued under 1.18 has not been followed and the accused can be released on bail in this petition. 16. Looking from any angle, it is clearly goes to show that the seized quantity of the cocaine is more than the commercial quantity. 16. Looking from any angle, it is clearly goes to show that the seized quantity of the cocaine is more than the commercial quantity. Even the specific contention of the learned SPP that if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, then he may again involved in same type of case in future and he is a habitual offender. Then under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail petition stands dismissed.