ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner is accused in case registered vide NCB Crime No. 41/2021 dated 13.06.2021 under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) by the Narcotic Control Bureau (for short NCB), Sub Zone, Mandi District Mandi H.P. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail in the above noted case under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the petitioner is innocent and has been implicated falsely in the case. As per petitioner, nothing has been recovered from her or at her instance. No further recovery is required to be effected from her and further custodial interrogation is not required. It has been alleged that investigation of the case is complete. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all conditions as may be imposed. Petitioner has undertaken not to threaten, allure and induce prosecution witnesses. Petitioner alleges to be permanent resident of Ward No. 12, Behleen Phatti, Banwari Garh, District Sangroor, Punjab and is stated to be engaged in a private job. 3. On notice, respondent has placed on record status report. As per respondent, Intelligence Officer of NCB at Chandigarh, received a secret information that one person namely Simranjeet Singh, S/o Sh. Nirmal Singh has purchased Charas in District Kullu and will be transporting the same to Chandigarh on 13.06.2021. On such secret information, a team was constituted by the Zonal Director, NCB, Chandigarh. The team of NCB laid a Naka at Pulghrat on 13.06.2021. Municipal Councillor of the area Sh. Yog Raj along with LHHC No. 235 Smt. Champa were associated as independent witnesses. At about 5.40 P.M., a Motorcycle bearing No. PB-13AD-2700 was intercepted. Simranjeet Singh was the rider and the petitioner was on the pillion. 4. After necessary formalities, a search was conducted. 526 grams of Charas was recovered from a bag being carried by petitioner on her back and 780 grams of Charas was found in another bag tied to the Motorcycle. Thus, total 1.306 Kgs. of Charas was recovered. Respondent has further submitted that the investigation is still continuing. 5. The bail of the petitioner has been opposed on the grounds that she is not entitled to bail having committed heinous offence. Thus, total 1.306 Kgs. of Charas was recovered. Respondent has further submitted that the investigation is still continuing. 5. The bail of the petitioner has been opposed on the grounds that she is not entitled to bail having committed heinous offence. It has been submitted that petitioner is disentitled from getting the bail on account of the application of rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 6. I have heard Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. 7. It has been pointed out during the hearing of the case that petitioner is the wife of Simranjeet Singh, the rider of the Motorcycle. The secret information with NCB was with respect to purchase of Charas by Simranjeet Singh, a substantial part of which has been found from the bag being carried by the petitioner on her back and rest of the contraband has been found in a bag tied to the motorcycle. The available facts prima-facie suggest that petitioner had requisite intent and knowledge about contraband of commercial quantity being carried jointly by her and her husband Simranjeet Singh. The petitioner and her husband were in joint possession of commercial quantity of Charas, therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, will apply. 8. Thus, the implication of petitioner prima facie cannot be said to be without justification. That being so, this Court is unable to return findings that there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of charged offence. In addition, the possibility of petitioner indulging in similar offence during bail can also not be ruled out. Therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act comes into play and petitioner's right, if any, to be released on bail gets clogged. 9. The ingredients of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are to be read conjunctively and absence of any single condition thereof disentitles a person from relief of bail. 10. An argument has further been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail. The argument so raised deserves to be rejected for the reasons that the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is a question of fact and is to be determined during trial of the case. The argument so raised deserves to be rejected for the reasons that the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is a question of fact and is to be determined during trial of the case. The respondent has denied the allegation of petitioner as to non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Reference can be made to a recent judgment dated 22.9.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan, Criminal Appeal No. 1043 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1771 of 2021), wherein it has been held as under : “27. Another submission that has been raised by the counsel for the respondent both before the High Court and this Court is that due to non-compliance of the procedural requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the respondent should be granted bail. Section 42 provides that on the receipt of information of the commission of an offence under the statute, the officer will have to write down the information and send it to a superior officer with 72 hours. It has been submitted by the respondent that though the information was received by the Zonal Director, the information was put down in writing by an officer who was a part of the team constituted on the receipt of the information. The written information was then sent to the Zonal Director. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 , held that though the writing down of information on the receipt of it should normally precede the search and seizure by the officer, in exceptional circumstances that warrant immediate and expedient action, the information shall be written down later along with the reason for the delay. 28. Further, it was held that the issue of whether there was compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is a question of fact. The decision in Karnail Singh (supra) was recently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boota Singh v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 324.” 11. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 12. The decision in Karnail Singh (supra) was recently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boota Singh v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 324.” 11. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 12. Any opinion expressed hereinabove shall be construed only for the purposes of disposal of this application and shall have no effect on the merits of the case.