JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. This bail application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 33 of 2020, registered with Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital for the offence under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1985”). 2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 18.01.2020, Ravi Kumar Saini, Station House Officer of Kotwali, Ramnagar, District Nainital along with Sub-Inspector Prakash Singh Mehra and others police personnel were present for a routine-check in the area of Utpadav and Khatari, where he received a secret information that a person is going to Delhi in a Swift Dzire car of white colour carrying huge quantity of “Ganja” and he can be apprehended if raid is conducted. Accordingly, a raid was conducted. At about 23.30 hrs. the police party found one person sitting in the car, bearing registration No. DL8CAD4173. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Parvez, aged about 27 years, present applicant-accused. There was a smell of Ganja in the car. The present applicant informed the Police that he purchased “Ganja” from one Jagat Singh and now he was going to Delhi to sell it. The Station House Officer apprised him that they intend to search him and whether he wishes to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. At about 23.44 hrs., Mr. Pankaj Gairola, the Circle Officer of Police, Ramnagar, was informed by the Sub-Inspector Prakash Singh Mehra on his mobile phone. Constable Mehaboob Ali was sent to the police station to bring weighing scale. In spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. Mr. Pankaj Gairola, the Circle Officer of Police, Ramnagar, came at the spot at around 24.00 hrs. Mr. Pankaj Gairola, the Circle Officer, gave an option in writing to the applicant, whether he wanted to give personal search before a Magistrate or any other Gazetted Officer. The applicant gave his consent for being searched before him. Accordingly, a search was conducted in his presence. Mr. Mehaboob Ali, brought weighing scale from the police station. During the search of the car, six bags were found. The bags were opened. They found dry leaves of Bhang (Ganja) in the bags. On weighing, the first bag was containing 18 kg. 600 gms. of contraband. The second bag was containing 11 kg. Mr. Mehaboob Ali, brought weighing scale from the police station. During the search of the car, six bags were found. The bags were opened. They found dry leaves of Bhang (Ganja) in the bags. On weighing, the first bag was containing 18 kg. 600 gms. of contraband. The second bag was containing 11 kg. 700 gms. of contraband. The third bag was containing 15 kg. 300 gms. of contraband. The fourth bag was containing 12 kg. 170 gms. of contraband. The fifth bag was containing 14 kg. 400 gms. of contraband and the sixth bag was containing 8 kg. 200 gms. of contraband. Total weight of the contraband found was 80 kg. 370 gms. The applicant was arrested. The recovered contraband were sealed. The car and the recovered contraband were taken into possession vide recovery memo. An FIR was lodged by Mr. Ravi Kumar Saini, the Station House Officer. Six samples of 250 gms. each were taken before the Court concerned. These samples so taken were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found the same to be “Ganja.” After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is submitted. 3. Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State through video conferencing. 4. Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been implicated; nothing has been recovered from his private vehicle; the alleged recovered article was “Bhang” and the possession of “Bhang” has been excluded from the purview of the Act, 1985. 5. In support of the said submissions, the learned Senior Advocate relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 104 Bom. L.R. 908, the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Arjun Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2005 Cri. L.J. 253, the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 7672 of 2015, Sando Stellance vs. State of Karnataka, dated 24.01.2017, the judgment of Punjab-Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. L.R. 908, the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Arjun Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2005 Cri. L.J. 253, the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 7672 of 2015, Sando Stellance vs. State of Karnataka, dated 24.01.2017, the judgment of Punjab-Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No. M-266 of 2018, Jangir Singh vs. State of Punjab, dated 13.07.2018, the judgment of Punjab-Haryana High Court in CRA-D-676-DB-2010, Harbhajan Singh alias Bhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab and batch, dated 08.02.2019 and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Bail No. 311 of 2019, Shiv Pratap Singh vs. Union of India through N.C.B. Lucknow, dated 20.02.2019. 6. Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that in the present matter, mandatory provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 has not been complied. In support of the said submissions, Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, relied upon a Judgment dated 16.04.2021, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2021, Boota Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 , followed in subsequent decisions in Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 212 and State of Rajasthan vs. Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, (2016) 11 SCC 687 and held that total non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 is impermissible. 7. In the end, Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate argued that the provision of Section 55 of the Act, 1985 has not been complied and the applicant is in judicial custody since 20.01.2020. 8. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Jemini, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposed the bail application. He argued that it has not been explained by the learned Senior Advocate that how the applicant, who is involved in another FIR No. 285 of 2018, registered with Police Station, Ramnagar, under Section 8/20 of the Act, 1985, can get the benefit of the decisions passed on the basis of merit at the stage of hearing of the bail application in the facts of the present case. According to Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate, the applicant has been granted bail in FIR No. 285 of 2018. 9. Mr. According to Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate, the applicant has been granted bail in FIR No. 285 of 2018. 9. Mr. V.K. Jemini, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submitted that after recovery of the articles from the private vehicle of the applicant, the same were sealed. Samples from the recovered contraband were taken before the Court concerned and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory; the chemical examination of sample has been conducted by the Officer of Government in due discharge of his duties as Chemical Examiner, therefore, the report of Chemical Examiner is admissible in evidence and according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the tested material was “Ganja.” He further submitted that the documents on record did indicate that the superior Officer was informed and after information, the search was conducted before him. In these circumstances, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submitted that whether there was adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 of the Act, 1985 or not is a question of fact to be decided in the trial. 10. Cannabis (hemp) and Cannabis plant are two different things. Ganja and Charas fall under cannabis (hemp). Flowering and fruiting tops have been included in the Act, 1985. In the instant matter, the samples of 250 gms. each were taken before the Court concerned. These samples so taken were duly submitted to the Chemical Examiner, who found the same to be “Ganja.” 11. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. 12. In Gian Chand and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 420 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between cases or between two accused in same case. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because a single significant detail may alter entire aspect. 13. In Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), the appellant-accused was convicted for possessing Bhang under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Act, 1985. In Arjun Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra), the case of the prosecution was that the recovered article was Bhang. 13. In Madhukar vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra), the appellant-accused was convicted for possessing Bhang under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Act, 1985. In Arjun Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra), the case of the prosecution was that the recovered article was Bhang. In Sando Stellance vs. State of Karnataka (Supra), it was found that “Ganja soppu” was mentioned in the charge-sheet. In Kannada, its meaning is ganja leaves. In Jangir Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra), it was admitted position that seized articles were leaves of cannabis plant, Bhang. In Harbhajan Singh alias Bhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra), after considering the entire evidence, produced in the trial, non-compliance of Section 42 (1) and Section 42 (2) were proved. In Shiv Pratap Singh vs. Union of India (Supra), according to the FSL report, the recovered article was containing “stem pieces” and “seeds” and “green leaves” along with the “flowering and fruiting tops.” 14. The evidence, collected by the Investigating Officer in the present case, clearly shows that when the secret information was received, the informant Ravi Kumar Saini, Station House Officer, was not present in the police station. He was busy in routine-check in the area of Utpadav and Khatari. Mr. Pankaj Gairola, Circle Officer of Police, Senior Officer, was informed before proceeding to take action in terms of Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42 (1) of the Act, 1985. The documents, filed by the State, indicate that at this stage, it cannot be concluded that there was total non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. 15. The preamble of the Act, 1985 shows that the object of this Act is to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs and to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. 16. As per the Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, 1000 gram of “Ganja” is small quantity and greater than 20 kg. is commercial quantity (Entry No. 55). 17. The accusation in the present case is with regard to the commercial quantity. At this stage, it seems appropriate to notice the provision of Section 37 of the Act, 1985. is commercial quantity (Entry No. 55). 17. The accusation in the present case is with regard to the commercial quantity. At this stage, it seems appropriate to notice the provision of Section 37 of the Act, 1985. The provision of Section 37 of the Act, 1985 is to the following effects:- “Section 37: Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable. (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless: (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that 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. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.” 18. The general principles of grant of bail are not applicable in a case involving the Act, 1985. Once the public prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a person accused of the enumerated offences, in case, the Court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other enactment: (i) the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence. In State of Kerala vs. Rajesh and Others, AIR 2020 SC 721 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds and (ii) that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. The non-obstante clause with which this Section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. The non-obstante clause with which this Section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail. To check the menace of dangers drugs and psychotropic substances flooding the market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of the offences under the Act should not be released on bail during the trial unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 of the Act, 1985 are satisfied. 19. In the case of State vs. Syed Amir Hasnain, (2002) 10 SCC 88 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, “In view of the two judgments of this Court in Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 382 and Union of India vs. Aharwa Deen, (2000) 9 SCC 382 , even the High Court would be bound by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and would not be entitled to release the accused under the provisions of the NDPS Act unless the provisions of Section 37 are satisfied.” 20. In State of M.P. vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that negation of bail is the rule and its grants an exception under (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37 (1) of the Act, 1985. 21. In State of Kerela vs. Rajesh (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that liberal approach in the matter of bail under the N.D.P.S. Act is uncalled for. 22. According to the FIR, in spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. Apart from this, the law is well settled that the evidence of a public officer cannot be thrown only on the ground that he is a police officer while the provision of Section 55 of the Act, 1985 is not mandatory. 23. A ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2018 (1) SCC 117 is that in serious crimes, the mere fact that the accused is in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration to release the accused on bail. 24. At the stage of considering the bail application, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case has not to be undertaken. 24. At the stage of considering the bail application, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case has not to be undertaken. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 25. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that mandatory conditions, as mentioned above, have been satisfied. It would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial court. But, from the perusal of the evidence, collected during the investigation, it prima facie appears that the applicant was involved in this offence. No reason is found to implicate the applicant. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. The bail application is liable to be rejected. The bail application is rejected accordingly. 26. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision, in the light of the facts, provided by the parties at this stage, as to whether the bail application should be allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.