ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.483/2019 of Banaswdi Police Station, Bengaluru., for the offence punishable under Section 22(B) of N.D.P.S. Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 21.08.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. the respondent police have received credible information that the petitioner is in possession of narcotic drug in order to sell the same near Krishna Grand Hotel, 80 feet main road, Kacharakana Halli, Bengaluru City. Immediately the police went to the spot and arrested the accused in the presence of panchas and seized 14 gms of MDMA and one mobile phone from the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that as per the Circular bearing No.1/88, the Investigating Agency has to secure the Qualitative Analysis Test within 15 days and Quantitative Analysis Test within 30 days. But the same has not been produced before the Court till today. 5. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record, the police did not go to the spot with any equipments so as to tentatively ascertain the seized article being a narcotic drug, so that, the Court can ascertain the result of qualitative and quantitative test as per standing instruction of the Circular 1/88. 6. In a decision reported in 2009 12 SCC 161 in the case of Union of India Vs. Bal Mukunda and Others, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there was nothing to produce before the Court to show that the petitioner had in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drug. Therefore, the Court has observed that it was a legal requirement and the Court has to enlarge the petitioner on bail holding that the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be pressed into service. At this stage applying the above said principle, in this case also though 14 gms of MDMA has been seized from the custody of the accused, no test has been conducted by the police so as to initially show that the said article is a narcotic drug. 7. Under the above the said facts and circumstances, as there is no bad antecedent as alleged against the petitioner and there is doubtful about the seized article is commercial quantity of narcotic drug. 7. Under the above the said facts and circumstances, as there is no bad antecedent as alleged against the petitioner and there is doubtful about the seized article is commercial quantity of narcotic drug. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following: ORDER : The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Cr.No.483/2019 of Banaswdi police station, Bengaluru subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii. The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause. iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of. v. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days i.e., on any Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.