ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in reference NCB.F.NO.48/1/18/2020/BZU, registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ for short). 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, for respondent-State. 3. The material on record disclose that, on the basis of a credible information, respondent intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No.KL01AZ77 on 09.11.2020 at Davanagere toll gate, Bengaluru. Three persons in the said vehicle including the present petitioner, disclosed their names. On thorough search of the vehicle, three packets were found which were underneath driver’s seat. With the test kit carried by the respondent, substance found in the three packets was tested and it was found that the packets contained 3kgs. of hashish oil. All the three accused were arrested and produced before the Court. Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 10.11.2020. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the confessional statement of the petitioner, cannot be used against him, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, in Crl.A.No.152/2013 dated 29.10.2020. Para 155 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: 155. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of NDPS Act are “Police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into consideration in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. (ii) That a statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. 5. (ii) That a statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the standing instruction No.1/88 of NDPS Control Bureau, New Delhi and contended that qualitative and quantitative test has not been conducted within the time stipulated therein and the said instructions are mandatory, which has not been followed in the present case and therefore it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the seized articles are contraband articles. He contends that there is no infraction to standard instruction and the benefit goes to the petitioner. He submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Balmukund reported in 2009 (12) SCC 161 has observed that, Standard instruction cannot be lost sight of as it was required in law. He submits that this Court in the case reported in Chandru Kunthuru Raghuvegowda Vs. State by Inspector of Customs CIU, Bengaluru, reported in ILR 2017 KAR 4053 having found that there has been violation of Standard instruction No.1/88, has granted bail to the petitioner therein. In this regard, he has relied on another unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.7374/2018 disposed of on 03.04.2019. 6. In the present case, the petitioner and two other accused were in the vehicle from which the alleged drug was seized. Material placed on record go to show that on thorough search of the said car, three packets were found underneath the driver’s seat of the car. Petitioner was said to be driving the vehicle. The sample of the seized material was tested using a drug detection kit and it gave positive result for hashish oil. The test was carried in respect of the substance contained in all the three packets. Since all the three packets and the contents were similar in colour and texture and the test through drug detection kit gave positive result for hashish oil, the contents were taken out from the three together and thereafter the seized material was weighed, the net weight of the seized hashish oil was found to be 3kgs. 7. Learned counsel for respondent has produced the inventory of seized contrabands to show that 3kgs. of hashish oil was seized and as per AnnexureR16 it was certified by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. Learned counsel for respondent has produced the inventory of seized contrabands to show that 3kgs. of hashish oil was seized and as per AnnexureR16 it was certified by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Further Annexure at R21, the certificate issued by the magistrate under Section 52A(3) of the Act, shows that the seized contraband was weighed in the open Court and the sample was taken for sending to CRCL New Delhi, for chemical analysis. Annexure R18 proceedings of certification of seized drugs shows that seized items were in sealed condition and found to be intact. Respective sample were withdrawn and sealed with Court seal, for sending to CRCL, New Delhi. 8. It is not the case of prosecution that only on the basis of voluntary statement of the petitioner, he was named as an accused in the present case. Contraband has been recovered at the instance of the accused and the same was tested positive for hashish oil. Though it is contended that the test kit report cannot be accepted or taken into consideration, however, prima facie it shows that the contraband seized is a narcotic drug. It is seen that the sample taken from the seized contraband was sent for forensic examination and the report as per AnnexureR1 dated 23.12.2020 would show that the sample which was examined tested positive for hashish oil. 9. The seized drug is of commercial quantity and the test was carried in respect of all the three packets separately, which gave positive result for hashish oil. This Court is bound by the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Initially from the test kit result, the seized substance tested positive for hashish oil. Hence, the contention that guidelines No.1/88 of NCB has not been followed and that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner etc., can not be accepted. FSL report also shows that the sample sent tested positive for hashish oil. Material on record would clearly show that the contents in all the three packets were similar and thereafter, they were mixed and tested together. In view of the FSL report, it cannot be said that by mixing all contents in the three packets has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, the contraband seized is a commercial quantity and therefore Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is applicable to the case of the petitioner. 11. In view of the FSL report, it cannot be said that by mixing all contents in the three packets has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, the contraband seized is a commercial quantity and therefore Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is applicable to the case of the petitioner. 11. Para 20 and 21 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Kerala Vs.Rajesh reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 81, is extracted here 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 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” mean 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 required 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 objet of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the Cr.P.C. 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.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has undergone surgery on account of an accident, and the petitioner is having permanent disability to an extent of 30% to the whole body. I have perused the disability certificate which is dated 13.05.2015, produced at Annexure-E, wherein, the disability stated is Persistent pain and stiffness of lower back. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has undergone surgery on account of an accident, and the petitioner is having permanent disability to an extent of 30% to the whole body. I have perused the disability certificate which is dated 13.05.2015, produced at Annexure-E, wherein, the disability stated is Persistent pain and stiffness of lower back. The accident has taken place on 29.01.2008. Certificate at Annexure-E at this stage does not inspire this Court either to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence or to release the petitioner on medical ground. There is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged. Hence, the grounds urged by the learned counsel cannot be accepted to grant bail to the petitioner. The investigation is still in progress and therefore considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Petition is dismissed. The observations made herein above shall be confined to the disposal of this petition and shall not influence the trial Court in the pending proceedings.