ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the sole accused in Crime No.341/2020 of Kadugondanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered for offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ for short]. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel for petitioner and the learned SPPII for respondent/State and perused the material on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.10.2020 at 9.00 p.m., the Police Inspector attached to CCB received a credible information that one person by name Mohmed Ali Tojari i.e., petitioner herein, a resident of premises bearing No.673, 1st T.J. Residency, main, 6th cross, V block, HBR Layout, Bengaluru, is illegally earning money procuring LSD strips, MDMA crystal, ecstasy tablets from foreign countries and selling the same to students and customers. Upon receiving the said information, a raid was conducted in the said premises. On search, a postal cover produced by the petitioner was seized and the said postal cover contained 100 ecstasy tablets weighing about 42 gms. The same was seized under a mahazar. A Pro Max i phone belonging to the petitioner was also seized. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Station House Officer of the K.G. Halli Police Station. Thereafter, he was produced before the jurisdictional Court and remanded to judicial custody, on 27.10.2020. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that while conducting seizure, there is no strict compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The credible information was not reduced into writing before proceeding to the spot and it was also not informed to the official superior as required. The option of search was not given by the officer empowered under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner was also not informed about his right of being searched in the presence of a gazetted officer. He submits that the envelope which is alleged to have been seized was not opened by the petitioner and while conducting the seizure, samples of alleged contraband has not been taken. As on today, search report has not been received to confirm that the material seized is a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, which creates a doubt in the prosecution case. As on today, search report has not been received to confirm that the material seized is a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, which creates a doubt in the prosecution case. It is his further contention that at this stage, it cannot be said that the contraband seized is MDMA in the absence of any test report and therefore, there is no prima facie case against the petitioner. He contends that in the present case, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. He submits that the petitioner is a BBM Graduate. He has worked for reputed companies such as M/s. accenture and M/s. Source and after resigning, he is doing his own avocation by opening a salon by name ‘Magic Mirror Salon’ in Bengaluru. 5. The learned SPPII appearing for the respondent/State has filed statement of objections. He has contended that on receiving a credible information regarding procurement of LSD strips, MDMA crystals, ecstasy tablets and other narcotic drugs by the petitioner from foreign countries and selling the same to students and customers, the respondent/Police after following due procedure have gone to the house of the petitioner and seized the contraband article viz., 100 ecstasy tablets weighing about 42 gms. which were in a postal cover. He submits that the said postal cover was in the name of the petitioner which was received at the post office and delivered to the petitioner. The said contraband was seized in the presence of a gazetted officer viz., Assistant Commissioner of Police and there is a strict compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. He further contends that Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that the accused shall not be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. He submits that the CCTV footages produced by the petitioner cannot be considered as the same is not supported by any certificate. He submits that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Investigation is still pending and therefore, seeks to reject the petition. 6. He submits that the CCTV footages produced by the petitioner cannot be considered as the same is not supported by any certificate. He submits that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Investigation is still pending and therefore, seeks to reject the petition. 6. Material on record disclose that on 26.10.2020 at about 9.00 a.m., the Police Inspector attached to Special Enquiry Squad, CCB, received a credible information that the accused/petitioner herein in the house bearing No.673 T.J. Residency situated at 1st main, 6th cross, V block, HBR Layout, is involved in procuring LSD strips, MDMA crystals and ecstasy tablets from foreign countries and selling the same to the customers, students etc, and illegally making money. The Police Inspector along with his staff and panchwitnesses proceeded to the spot and they found that the petitioner was in the said house. A postal white colour cover and sealed in green tape containing name as Mr. Ali TJ with address, is said to have been handed over by the petitioner. On the cover it was printed as ‘PostNL PRIORITY, NEDERLAND E4.50’. Mahazar drawn with regard to seizure of the envelope shows that information was sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, a gazetted officer for personal search of the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have disclosed that using internet link and paying through bit coins online, he used to secure parcel. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police carried out personal search and thereafter, opened the cover which is alleged to have contained about 100 ecstasy tablets [MDMA] weighing about 42 grams. The said tablets were tested by using NDPS kit and it was confirmed that the same are ecstasy tablets. 7. The learned senior counsel has contended that there is no strict compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. He has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013)2 SCC 212 to contend that there should be a strict compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He contends that the officer on receiving the information of the nature referred to in sub Section (1) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act from any person has to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action. He contends that the officer on receiving the information of the nature referred to in sub Section (1) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act from any person has to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action. He submits that no effort has been made by the officer to reduce the information into writing and inform to his highest authorities instantaneously or even after a seizure was conducted. 8. The learned senior counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Chand Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013)2 SCC 502 and contended that noncompliance of Sections 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act is fatal since the principle of substantial compliance would be applicable in the cases where the language of the provision strictly or by necessary implication admits of such compliance. He contends that the compliance of Section 42 is mandatory even while considering the application for bail. 9. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009)8 SCC 539 , the learned senior counsel has contended that the officer on receiving the information has to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior and therefore contends that the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that there shall be a strict compliance of the provision under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. 10. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2011)1 SCC 609 , he has contended that the obligation of the authorized officer under sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires strict compliance and failure to comply with the said provision would render recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the proceedings. 11. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar alias Gangaram Vs. 11. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar alias Gangaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2020)9 SCC 202 , the leaned senior counsel has contended that presumption against the accused of culpability under Section 35, and under Section 54 of the NDPS Act to explain possession satisfactorily, are rebuttable and it does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. The learned senior counsel has also contended that the guidelines issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau as per 1/88 with regard to quantitative and qualitative itself has not been complied and the report has not been procured to confirm that the articles seized are narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund and others reported in (2009)12 SCC 161 , wherein para 36 reads 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.” 13. The learned senior counsel has further contended that the law requires that search should normally be conducted by a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. Even presence of a gazetted officer in the raiding team would not subserve the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and in support of his argument, he has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2006)12 SCC 321 . 14. The learned SPPII has produced a list of documents, wherein copy of the station house diary has been produced. Perusal of the same go to show that at 9.00 a.m., the complainant viz., Police Inspector, CCB having received the credible information with regard to the present case reduced the information into writing in the said diary. 14. The learned SPPII has produced a list of documents, wherein copy of the station house diary has been produced. Perusal of the same go to show that at 9.00 a.m., the complainant viz., Police Inspector, CCB having received the credible information with regard to the present case reduced the information into writing in the said diary. It is also stated that the information was sent to the superior officer viz., Assistant Commissioner of Police. 15. The learned senior counsel has contended that the said writing does not specifically state that it was in respect of the present case, as there was no mention of the name of the petitioner and the actual information received. Perusal of the said copy of the station house diary made available by the learned SPP would indicate that the substance of the information was reduced into writing and thereafter, the information was passed on to the superior officer, by the complainant. There is nothing to doubt at this stage that the information reduced into writing was not concerned with the present case. The mahazar drawn in the house of the petitioner shows that the envelope was beneath the teapoy which was handed over by the petitioner to the riding team. The mahazar drawn would also indicate that the petitioner was informed about his right to be searched as required under law and thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, a gazetted officer conducted the personal search. Since the contraband was found in the envelope which was in the house of the petitioner and handed over by the petitioner to the complainant, it cannot be said that there was no strict compliance of Section 42 or 50 of the NDPS Act. It is only after the Assistant Commissioner of Police was called to the spot, he has conducted the personal search of the petitioner and there was no substance found on his person. It is only after opening of the cover/envelope handed over by the petitioner, it was found that the same contained contraband article viz., ecstasy tablets amounting to 100 in numbers weighing about 42 gms. 16. It is only after opening of the cover/envelope handed over by the petitioner, it was found that the same contained contraband article viz., ecstasy tablets amounting to 100 in numbers weighing about 42 gms. 16. The contention of the learned senior counsel that at this stage there is no material to show that the material seized are narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances cannot be accepted, as it is seen from the mahazar that the raiding team tested the seized substance using a NDPS kit, which responded for ecstasy tablets. The document produced by the learned SPP would also show that the Assistant Commissioner of Police was informed about the raid by the officer regarding his search before a jurisdictional Magistrate or by a gazetted officer and the petitioner opted to be searched by the said officer himself. Further, an inventory of seized contraband was also drawn and sample was sent for examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, which was received by the FSL on 25.11.2020. In the above given circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is noncompliance of the provisions of Section 42 or 50 of the NDPS Act or there is no primafaciecase made out against the petitioner. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund and others [supra], has observed at para 36 that, Standing Instruction 1/88 lays down the procedure for taking samples. In the said case, after considering that samples of 25 gms. each from all the 5 bags are taken and then mixed and sent to the laboratory, it was held that there is nothing to show that adequate quantity from each bag had been taken as required in law. The same is not in the instant case. It is not the case of petitioner that there has been such violation as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 18. The learned SPP has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Tasleem N.P. @ Muhammed Thaslim N.P. Vs. The same is not in the instant case. It is not the case of petitioner that there has been such violation as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 18. The learned SPP has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Tasleem N.P. @ Muhammed Thaslim N.P. Vs. State of Karnataka and others in Crl.P. No.3073/2020 and connected matters, decided on 01.10.2020, wherein a coordinate bench of this Court has observed that when there are materials indicating existence of prima facie materials about the involvement of the petitioners in commission of the offence, the fact that the Investigation Officer could not obtain the FSL report within the stipulated time is not so significant. 19. The learned SPP has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Supdt. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Vs. R.Paulsamy reported in (2000)9 SCC 549 . Para 6 of the said Judgment is extracted hereunder: “6. In the light of Section 37 of the Act no accused can be released on bail when the application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is unfortunate that matters which could be established only in offence regarding compliance with Sections 52 and 57 have been prejudged by the learned Single Judge at the stage of consideration for bail. The minimum which learned Single Judge should have taken into account was the factual presumption in law position that official acts have been regularly performed. Such presumption can be rebutted only during evidence and not merely saying that no document has been produced before the learned Single Judge during bail stage regarding the compliance with the formalities mentioned in those two sections.” 20. In the case of State of Kerala Etc. Vs. Rajesh Etc. in Crl.A. Nos.154157/2020, decided on 24.01.2020, the Hon’be Apex Court has observed at paras 20 and 21, which reads as under: “20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with nonobstante clause. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with nonobstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 21. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.” 21. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, it cannot be said at this stage that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence. The photographs containing the CCTV footages annexed to the petition cannot be taken into consideration at this stage to hold that even prior to conducting of seizure panchanama, there was investigation etc. This Court while disposing of a bail petition is not expected to conduct an enquiry into the said aspect. The contraband alleged to have been seized are ecstasy tablets [MDMA] which according to the prosecution is about 42 gms. and therefore, the same is a commercial quantity and hence Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to the present case. 22. The contraband alleged to have been seized are ecstasy tablets [MDMA] which according to the prosecution is about 42 gms. and therefore, the same is a commercial quantity and hence Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to the present case. 22. It is submitted by the learned SPP that the contraband has been sent for chemical examination and FSL report is awaited. The petitioner is in judicial custody. If the prosecution takes its own time to secure the FSL report, same will result in detention of the accused for an indefinite period. The FSL report shall be secured at the earliest, within a reasonable time. The petitioner is at liberty to move the jurisdictional Special Court if the report is not received within a reasonable time. Hence, the respondent is directed to secure the FSL report within a reasonable period, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to file an application seeking similar relief before the jurisdictional Court. Petition is dismissed. The observations made herein above are confined to the disposal of this bail petition and shall not influence the trial of the case, in any manner.