JUDGMENT P.N.Desai, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.83/2019 (Spl. Case No.794/2019) of Khatak Chincholi Police Station Taluka Bhalki Dist: Bidar for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS' Act). 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that, Circle Police Inspector Rural Police Station Bhalki by name Vijay Kumar received credible information that on 12- 07-2019 at about 2.00 p.m., one Mr.Vikaram and others have brought the Ganja in a white Verna Car bearing Reg. No.AP-32-AW-7557 and they have stored Ganja in the land belonging to one Prabhu @ Prahalad Chavan which was taken on lease by one Sheshappa S/o Shankerappa Biradar land bearing survey No.72 situated in Bajolga village and the said Ganja was stored in the shed of the said land. Accordingly on 12- 07-2019 he gave memorandum to the P.S.I of Khatak Chincholi Police Station. On the basis of it the P.S.I registered a case in Crime No.83/2019 for the offence punishable under section 20(b) (ii) of NDPS Act against the accused/petitioner. It is further alleged that, the complainant went to Bidar and obtained search warrant from Prl. District & Sessions Judge Bidar on 12-07-2019. Accordingly he secured the panchas, Gazetted Officer and two teachers and conducted seizure panchnama on 13-02-2019 in the said land between 1.30 a.m., early morning to 4.30 a.m. They opened the shed and found that there are six gunny bags and when they opened it, they found that there are boxes which were made with khaki colour plastic tape and they opened them and found Ganja in it. It is further case of the prosecution that, they have taken 100 grams as a sample under mahazar from each box and also seized the Ganja from Dicky of the said car and also seized the same under mahazar in the presence of said Gazetted Officer, teachers and other police officials. Thereafter words he seized the said vehicle under same panchnama between 5.10 a.m. to 6.10 a.m. They found total 187.65 Kilograms Ganja stored in the said shed near the well of the said land bearing survey No.72. The total value of the said Ganja is Rs.9,38,250/-. Thereafter words he seized the said vehicle under same panchnama between 5.10 a.m. to 6.10 a.m. They found total 187.65 Kilograms Ganja stored in the said shed near the well of the said land bearing survey No.72. The total value of the said Ganja is Rs.9,38,250/-. They have weighed the Ganja and noted its quantity and then sealed and pasted the seal with their mark. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 15-07-2019 this petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that, this petitioner gave voluntary statement and stated that, himself and other accused in this case have brought the said Ganja from Andhra Pradesh and one Mr.Balaji of Hyderabad and Siddappa informed him that at Narsipatnam in Andhra Pradesh which is near to Vishakapatnam they will get Ganja for a cheap rate, so they can bring Ganja for a cheap rate and sell it in Karnataka for higher rate. So accordingly all of them had been to that place on 10-07-2019. Balaji talked with a person over telephone and he brought 71 boxes of Ganja and 2 bags of open Ganja and they purchased it for Rs.40,000/-. Then they all returned. This accused/petitioner stored said Ganja in the shed situated in the above said land. So on the basis of voluntary statement of this petitioner the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet for the above said offence. 4. The petitioner has filed this bail petition on the ground that, he is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He is resident of Beeri (B) village and alleged incident is of Khatak Chincholi village. He is no way concerned to alleged spot and village. There were no records produced to show survey No.72 belongs to Sheshappa S/o Sharanappa and there is no lease agreement produced to show that, other person was cultivating the said land on lease basis. There are no statements regarding when the accused ran away, how he was arrested, only it is shown that, near Khaplapur cross road, when the police constable was patrolling, the accused was trying to ran away, suddenly the police constable has caught hold him. Those false allegations are made against him. The mandatory provisions of NDPS Act are not followed. There are no statements regarding when the accused ran away, how he was arrested, only it is shown that, near Khaplapur cross road, when the police constable was patrolling, the accused was trying to ran away, suddenly the police constable has caught hold him. Those false allegations are made against him. The mandatory provisions of NDPS Act are not followed. The FIR is registered against this accused without verifying the material against him. Though the Magistrate is available at nearest place, but the Investigating Officer went to the Prl. District & Sessions Judge Bidar to get the search warrant. Even he has stated in the requisition to the Prl. District & Sessions Judge the surrounding boundaries, owner name without approaching the spot and without conducting any enquiry of the spot. That itself indicates that, this is all created and concocted story. As per section 42 of NDPS Act, seizure or search shall be done between the sunrise and sunset, but in the present case it is done after sunset and before sunrise. In the memorandum they have shown one car and in the charge sheet they have shown three cars. The Forensic Science Laboratory report was not submitted to the court or not, it is not forthcoming. The Ganja which was seized by the police is whether it is a Ganja, leaves or seed, it is not specified in any documents. The Investigating Officer has already completed investigation and filed charge sheet. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 15-07-2019. He has contended that, he will co-operate with the Investigating Officer and ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this court. With these main grounds the petitioner has prayed to enlarge him on bail. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the following citations: 1. Criminal Appeal No.943/2005 dated: 29-10- 2010 (Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja Vs State of Gujarat) 2. Criminal Petition No.8644/2017 dated: 18-01- 2018 (Ben Okoro S/o Okoro Vs State of Karnataka by Kothanur Police) 3. Criminal Petition No.10982/2012 dated: 25-09- 2012 (Siddappa S/o Neelappa Budihal Vs State of Karnataka by Excise Inspector Badami Zone) 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed objection to the petition contending that, the petitioner is involved in offence under section 20(b) (ii) of NDPS Act. The said offence is heinous and also antisocial in nature. Criminal Petition No.10982/2012 dated: 25-09- 2012 (Siddappa S/o Neelappa Budihal Vs State of Karnataka by Excise Inspector Badami Zone) 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed objection to the petition contending that, the petitioner is involved in offence under section 20(b) (ii) of NDPS Act. The said offence is heinous and also antisocial in nature. The petitioner and other accused were engaged in transporting and sale of huge quantity of Ganja and seized quantity being commercial quanity. If he is released on bail, he would indulge in such type of offences thereby affecting the health of the society. Hence he is not entitled for bail. The mandatory provisions of sections 42 & 50 of NDPS Act are complied, the Ganja was seized in the car and also in the land, so if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, then he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. With these main contentions the learned High Court Government Pleader prayed to reject the bail petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the bail petition, objection statement and charge sheet. 8. On perusing the materials placed by the prosecution, at this stage it is evident that, the said Ganja is not seized directly from the possession of this petitioner or at the instance of this petitioner. The Investigating Officer when he gave memorandum to the P.S.I on 12-07-2019 himself has mentioned that, he has received credible information that this petitioner on 12-07-2019 in Varuna car belonging to him has brought the Ganja and stored in the land bearing Survey No.72 which is cultivated by Sheshappa on lease basis and its owner is one Prabhu @ Prahalad. Admittedly the police have not produced any document to show that, the said land either belongs to this Sheshappa S/o Shankreppa Biradar or there are materials produced to show that, this Sheshappa has taken the said land on lease basis. Though the Investigating Officer has received credible information during the day-time itself and if he has sent the said memorandum and on the basis of it even a case came to be registered against this petitioner on 12-07- 2019 at 4.15 p.m, why immediately the search warrant was not obtained from the nearest J.M.F.C., as mentioned in the NDPS Act is not forthcoming. It appears that, he went to Bidar to obtain search warrant from District & Sessions Court and returned back and the panchnama was conducted. According to panchnama on 13-07-2019 with the help of Generator light early morning from 1.30 a.m. to 4.30 a.m. the panchanama was drawn. Admittedly the said shed was neither locked, nor there was anybody in the shed. According to Investigating Officer, they themselves obtained the warrant by mentioning all the boundaries went there and raided the said shed and found plastic boxes in gunny bags. Why the panchanama was not conducted during day time before sunset, after sunrise as mentioned in the said section. If at all Investigating Officer has credible information then he could have immediately conducted seizure panchanama by recording the reason and he could have immediately obtained the search warrant. According to Investigating Officer he knew the name of the land owner, name of accused, even the name of the person who is cultivating the said land on lease basis. Investigating Officer has made all detailed enquiry even before proceeding for search warrant, he has mentioned boundaries of said land. If at all he knew everything then why there was such long delay in drawing the panchanama is not forthcoming. Even it is evident that, at the time of drawing panchanama neither the land owner was present, nor the person who was cultivating the land on lease basis was present, nor there is anything to show that these persons were called or intimated about searching the shed situated in the said land. There is also nothing to show that, any such copy of the seizure of the said shed was given to these persons. Even the neighbouring land owners or the persons in that locality were also not called for panchanama. 9. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner what is the nature of Ganja which is seized is not forthcoming. "Ganja" means it is a cannabis i.e., flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant. Whether the Ganja seized is cannabis plant leaves, seeds or it is a mixture powder or it is in what form this Ganja is not forthcoming. Even the charge sheet does not disclose that, the car alleged to have been seized by them belongs to this petitioner or it is of his ownership. Whether the Ganja seized is cannabis plant leaves, seeds or it is a mixture powder or it is in what form this Ganja is not forthcoming. Even the charge sheet does not disclose that, the car alleged to have been seized by them belongs to this petitioner or it is of his ownership. Investigating Officer simply mentioned in the voluntary statement that the petitioner has stated that, he has purchased the said car from one Suresh, but that Suresh has not given him any records of the said car. It is mentioned in his voluntary statement that, he was doing coolie work and his parents also no more. Then how he has purchased the said car for Rs.2,00,000/- and what his income is not forthcoming. So, at this stage there are no materials to show that the Ganja was seized from the vehicle belonging to ownership or in possession of this petitioner. The charge sheet paper does not disclose that, the said Ganja alleged to have been seized belongs to whom or from whom the said Ganja is purchased. If at all the complainant knew the name of the petitioner, his father-in-law even where they are residing, why no efforts were made to search and arrest the accused on 12-07-2019 itself. On the other hand, the charge sheet indicates that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 15-07-2019 i.e., more than three days after the alleged seizure. Why only one panchanama was written for both seizures is also not forthcoming i.e., seizure from the shed and seizure from the car after a distance at different time. Moreover the charge sheet papers produced at this stage does not indicate the Forensic Science Laboratory report or the expert opinion report to show that, the said property seized is Ganja and it is a Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances, as defined under the said NDPS Act. So Forensic Science Laboratory report till today is not produced. At this stage, charge sheet does not indicate that, the petitioner is either owner of the said vehicle, nor he is the owner or in possession of land where the shed is situated and from where the said Ganja was seized. There are no statements of any of the witnesses who have seen this petitioner keeping/carrying the said Ganja in the said land or shed. 10. There are no statements of any of the witnesses who have seen this petitioner keeping/carrying the said Ganja in the said land or shed. 10. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration: (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence, (2) character of the accused, (3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused, (4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial, (5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a nonbailable offence. 11. So keeping in mind the provisions of section 37 of NDPS Act if the present application is considered then in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner is in judicial custody since more than one year. Charge sheet is already filed as the investigation is completed. Except the voluntary statement given by this petitioner, there are no other materials at this stage primafacie to show the involvement of this petitioner. Even the materials placed along with charge sheet, primafacie does not connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It does not indicate that, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. There are no allegations by the prosecution that, this petitioner was involved earlier in such type of transportation of Ganja or selling Narcotic Psychotropic Substances cases. No such previous acts are attributed. The procedure prescribed for investigation under NDPS Act is very strict and the non-compliance of said provisions will entitle the person for bail and sometimes for acquittal also. So keeping in mind the stringent provisions of NDPS Act, if the materials placed before this court are considered, then in my considered view the petitioner is entitled to be enlarge on bail. There are no materials to show that, the shed or land was in exclusive possession of this petitioner. 12. So keeping in mind the stringent provisions of NDPS Act, if the materials placed before this court are considered, then in my considered view the petitioner is entitled to be enlarge on bail. There are no materials to show that, the shed or land was in exclusive possession of this petitioner. 12. So, in the light of the above discussion and in view of the contents of the petitioner and the nature of the statement of objection, the principles stated in the above referred decisions, the provisions of the NDPS Act and also keeping in mind the principles regarding grant or refusal of bail, in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted by imposing reasonable conditions for the grant of bail. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439 of Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused by name Vikram S/o Somlu Rathod R/o Beeri (B) Thanda Tq: Bhalki Dist: Bidar is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.83/2019 (Spl. Case No.794/2019) on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge Bidar for the offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, on he executing a self bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional trial court, on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall furnish his permanent residential address and the documents in support of his place of residence before the trial court. ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. iii) The petitioner shall not commit similar offence of which he is accused or commission of which he is suspected. iv) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all the dates of hearing unless prevented by any genuine cause. v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the court.