JUDGMENT B.A. Patil, J. - Crl.P.No.1117/2020 has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.1139/2020 has been filed by accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release them on bail in NCB.F.No.48/1/18/2018/BZU(CIS.1322/18) for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w Section 20(b), 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S Act pending on the file of the 33rd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Act at Bengaluru. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri Shankarappa S appearing for petitioners accused No.1 and 3 Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: On 12.11.2018, the complainant received credible information that three persons were traveling from Vishakapatnam to Mumbai via Bengaluru in a grey Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.AP-16-BS-189 and they have kept large quantity of ganja with them and they were passing through Devanahalli tollgate. On 13.11.2018, the complainant along with his staff and panch witnesses has intercepted the said car and stopped, on search of the Car, they seized 223.844kgs of ganja and conducted panchanama. The accused persons were arrested and a case has been registered. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said accused persons have been brought and planted with the vehicle bearing registration No.AP-16-BS-189 though the accused persons have not involved in the alleged crime. It is his further submission that when a case has been registered at Panyam Police Station with another car number and accused persons have been apprehended then the question of apprehending the arrest and seized the large quantity of ganja that itself creates a doubt. It is his further submission that there are no bad antecedents as against the petitioners-accused. Already charge sheet has been filed and the accused persons are not required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release the petitioners - accused No.1 and 3 on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Special Standing counsel for respondent vehemently argued and contended that the respondent has apprehended the accused persons and have seized two tones of ganja which has been kept in the Car by drawing mahazar. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release the petitioners - accused No.1 and 3 on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Special Standing counsel for respondent vehemently argued and contended that the respondent has apprehended the accused persons and have seized two tones of ganja which has been kept in the Car by drawing mahazar. It is his further submission that the document of the vehicle has been fabricated, false document has been created and the vehicle has been used for the purpose of transportation of huge quantity of ganja. It is his further submission that FSL report clearly given positive result that seized article is ganja. It is his further submission that ownership of the vehicle is immaterial and that large quantity of ganja has been seized from the possession of the accused and the accused persons were present at the time of seizer drawing mahazar. In order to substantiate the case, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Rizwan Khan v. State of Chattisgarh,2020 SCCOnline(SC) 730 . It is his further submission that accused No.1 is habitual offender and many more cases have been registered and even proceeding has been initiated under Section 58F(2) of the NDPS Act and the properties and other materials belonging to the accused No.1 have been seized. If petitioners accused are released on bail, they may indulge in similar type of criminal activities. It is his further submission that accused No.1 is the main accused and accused Nos.2 and 3 were assisting in the commission of the offence. If the petitioners-accused are enlarged on bail, they may abscond and they may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. Though there are several contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the vehicle, as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in Rizwan Khan s case (quoted supra) at para 30, it has been observed as under; 30. 7. Though there are several contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the vehicle, as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in Rizwan Khan s case (quoted supra) at para 30, it has been observed as under; 30. Now as far as the submission on behalf of the accused that the ownership of the motor cycle (vehicle) has not been established and proved and/or that the vehicle has not been recovered is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case the appellant and other accused persons were found on the spot with the contraband articles in the vehicle. To prove the case under the NDPS Act, the ownership of the vehicle is not required to be established and proved. It is enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were found from the accused from the vehicle purchased by the accused. Ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. What is required to be established and proved is the recovery of the contraband articles and the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act? Therefore, merely because of the ownership of the vehicle is not established and proved and /or the vehicle is not recovered subsequently, trial is not vitiated, while the prosecution has been successful in proving and establishing the recovery of the contraband articles from the accused on the spot . 8. On perusal of above ration, it indicates that the respondent need not establish ownership of the Car and the ownership of the Car itself is not going to be determined, what is to be determined by the Court is whether article is ganja within a definition of Section 3 of the NDPS Act and what is the quantity of ganja whichever has been seized. 9. As per record, nearly about two tones of ganja has been seized from the possession of the accused and even the FSL report also indicates that the said seized article is ganja. Insofar as technicality of the seizure is concerned, the same has been satisfied in accordance with law. The same has to be gone into during the course of the trial. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, accused No.1 appears to be habitual offender and has been involved in many more cases and proceeding has been initiated under Section 58F(2) of the NDPS Act. The same has to be gone into during the course of the trial. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, accused No.1 appears to be habitual offender and has been involved in many more cases and proceeding has been initiated under Section 58F(2) of the NDPS Act. Under the said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that if petitioner accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconding and he may not be available for trial and again he may indulge in similar types of criminal activities. Insofar as petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned, no bad antecedents have been stated and even no other cases are pending as against him and the only allegation which has been made against accused No.3 is that he used to assist accused No.1 in doing the said activities. Hence, taking into consideration of the character and conduct of accused No.3, I am of the considered opinion that if, by imposing some stringent conditions, petitioner accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice. When there is prima-facie case as against accused No.1 and a large quantity of ganja has been seized from him. There are no good grounds to release petitioner-accused No.1 on bail. In that light, Crl.P.No.1117/2020 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed . 10. Since petitioner-accused No.3 has only assisted along with accused No.1, Crl.P.No.1139/2020 is allowed . Petitioner-accused No.3 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in NCB.F.No.48/1/18/2018/BZU(CIS.1322/18) pending on the file of 33rd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Act at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w Section 20(b), 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S Act with following conditions; i) Petitioner-accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. iii) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities, if he do so respondent is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. iv) He shall be regular in attending the trial, if he fails to appear regularly without excusable grounds then the bail is liable to be cancelled. iii) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities, if he do so respondent is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. iv) He shall be regular in attending the trial, if he fails to appear regularly without excusable grounds then the bail is liable to be cancelled. v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. vi) He shall mark his attendance once in a month on every 1st in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the jurisdictional Police till the trial is concluded.