JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - Since both the above petitions arise from a common FIR, therefore, both are amenable for a common verdict, being made thereons. 2. Through the instant petitions, cast under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioners crave for indulgence of theirs becoming admitted to regular bail, in respect of FIR bearing No. 321 of 7.8.2021, registered at Police Station Patra, District Patiala, wherein an offence, constituted under Section 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (for short 'Act'), is embodied. 3. Uncontrovertedly, the psychotropic substance(s), carrying a weight which makes them fall within the ambit of commercial quantity thereof, became recovered from a car make Hyundai Elantra of white colour bearing registration No. CH-01-BC-4180. Both the petitioners were occupants of the said car. 4. Uncontrovertedly also, the above seizure from the crime car occurred in the interregnum inter se sunset, and, sunrise. Moreover, undisputedly also with the ruqa, appended with the petitions, as Annexure P-1, hence echoing that it became drawn on 7.8.2021, does imminently enable this Court, to draw a firm inference, that the apposite seizure as occurring at the crime site, was a sequel of a prior information, being available with the police. 5. The legal sequel thereof, is that, since Section 42 of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, especially sub-Section (1) of the Act, thereof, makes it incumbent, upon the police to, in the event of its holding prior information, as the police evidently held in the extant case, qua the offenders concerned, allegedly carrying in their conscious, and, exclusive possession, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, and, it becoming carried through concealment(s) thereof in a building, conveyance or enclosed place, thereupon, a statutory interdiction becoming cast, upon the police, against the makings of the apposite entry into the building, conveyance or enclosed place, rather at the above phase, unless the police, then hold the validly issued search warrants, and/or, authorization(s), rather from the empowered authority concerned. 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. ? 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. ? (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset, ? (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.] 6. The SHO of the police station concerned, has produced the police record, before this Court, and, the learned State counsel, after making a studied analysis thereof, makes a very fair intimation to this Court, that the police, despite holding prior information with respect to, in the crime car hence concealing a psychotropic substance, yet neither, the investigating officer concerned, nor the then SHO, who thereafter also became intimated through a ruqa, sent at the police station concerned, about the crime event, and, that too, despite the Court of the learned Magistrate concerned, being accessible through a vehicle, rather took to make visits there, for ensuring that the search warrants rather becoming obtained, for the requisite purpose, besides yet neither the then SHO nor obviously the investigating officer concerned, and, for no tangible reason, hence obtained the enjoined search warrants rather for validating the appositely made search. 7. 7. Even if the above breach was caused to the peremptory statutory mandate, as carried in Section 42 of the Act, yet it was possible for it being overcome, through the then SHO of the police station concerned, or the investigating officer concerned, yet proceeding to recourse the mandate of the last proviso thereto, inasmuch as, the then SHO of the police station concerned, recording reasons to believe, that in case, any search warrant or authorization is obtained, from the competent authority, and, that immense time being consumed, for its becoming obtained, thereupon, sufficient, and, adequate opportunity becoming purveyed to the offenders concerned, to flee from the site of occurrence or to conceal the psychotropic substance concerned, and, or obviously the police becoming precluded, from causing their entry into the conveyance, and, also to naturally thereafter make seizure thereof. It appears that even if the said reasons had become recorded, they may not have been, prima facie, accepted or validated, by any Court of law, as it is stated by the learned State counsel, on instructions given to him by SI Mohan Singh, that throughout at the crime site, after the despatch of the ruqa to the police station concerned, or to the then SHO, the accused along with the crime vehicle rather became obviated, conspicuously given a large posse of policemen hence being throughout positioned, at the crime site, hence from either fleeing in the crime car or from hiding or concealing elsewhere, the incriminatory substance, as became kept thereins, and, which ultimately became recovered, through the seizure memo. 8. If so, the last proviso, which was rather for reasons (supra), completely unworkable for the police, and, nor it could ever operate as any valid exception, to the prior thereto imperatively compliable statutory necessity of the then SHO, and/or, the investigating officer concerned, who rather, conspicuously openly omitted, despite the availability of sufficient time, and, also with availability of a vehicle, to make the above endeavour, and, to also obtain the requisite search warrant or authorization, hence from the competent authority. Therefore, since neither the apt peremptory statutory mandate, as cast in a mandatory phrase, and, hence requiring the meteings of strictest compliance thereto, inasmuch as, when as above stated, the above seizure evidently occurring through a prior information, hence in the interregnum inter se the sunset, and, sunrise, and, also it occurring from a conveyance, nor when prior to its seizure therefrom, through an entry being made thereinto, by either the investigating officer concerned, or by the then SHO of the police station, rather the officer concerned, neither obtained the apposite search warrant(s) or authorization from the empowered authority, nor, at the relevant phase held them in their possession. Therefore, the above statutory breaches ultimately lead to the sequel that the above gross deep, and, pervasive transgressions, as, caused to the peremptory statutory necessity (supra), does constrain this Court to conclude, that the apposite recovery, and, also the consequent thereto made seizures, do not withstand, the test of law. In sequel, the further conclusion thereof, is that the present bail petitioners becoming entitled to become admitted to regular bail. 9. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed, and, the petitioners-bail applicants are ordered to be released from judicial custody, if not required in any other case. However, the granting of bail to the bail applicants-petitioners, is subject to theirs furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, before the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, and, also subject to theirs not tampering with prosecution evidence, and, theirs not influencing prosecution witnesses, and, besides also theirs appearing before the trial Court concerned, as and when directed to make his personal appearance. 10. 50,000/- each, before the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, and, also subject to theirs not tampering with prosecution evidence, and, theirs not influencing prosecution witnesses, and, besides also theirs appearing before the trial Court concerned, as and when directed to make his personal appearance. 10. Before parting, it is deemed, and, fit to make a direction, upon the Director General of Police, Punjab, especially given this Court, repeatedly noticing hence the emergences of the above blatant, and, gross breaches becoming visited, upon, peremptory statutory provisions, either by the investigating officers concerned, or by the chemical examinier concerned, working at the FSL cocnerned, or at the CTL concerned, besides this Court also repetitively noticing, that even at the time of production of the case property, in the Court, the investigating officers concerned, are extremely negligent in making testifications, that the seals', as, made on the recovered cloth parcels, do at that stage competely tally with the numbers thereof, and, also with the English alphabets, as made thereons, at the time of drawing of the seizure memo, and, also at the time of drawing of sealed cloth parcels, rather at the crime site, by the investigating officer concerned. Therefore, it appears that the investigating officers concerned, within the State of Punjab, who are investigating the NDPS cases, are required to be awakened with respect of the above, and, for their apposite fullest awakening, it is deemed fit to direct, the Director General of Police, Punjab, to, in batches ensure that trainings by the experts, be imparted, to the investigating officers, within the State of Punjab, who are deputed to investigate the NDPS cases. The above trainings be imparted, both at the Police academy at Jallandhar, and, at Phillaur. The above trainings be imparted, both at the Police academy at Jallandhar, and, at Phillaur. Moreover, training is also required to be imparted to the chemical examiners concerned, who are deployed at the FSL concerned, or the CTL concerned, as it has been earlier noticed by this Court, that at the time, when the sample cloth parcel(s), is sent to the FSL concerned, or to the CTL concerned, the chemical analyst, who work there, do not in their report, make any observation, that after the retrieval from the cloth parcels, the narcotic drug or the psychotropic substance, as is enclosed thereins, and, thereafter theirs making analyses thereof, theirs after re-enclosing the same, within the cloth parcels, rather theirs thereafter omitting to affix thereons the seals' of the FSL concerned, or of the CTL concerned. The above blatant, and, gross negligence, had on earlier occasions, constrained this Court, to obviously make an order of acquittal, upon the accused, as the imperative connectivity inter se the report of the FSL, and/or the report of the CTL concerned, at the time of arguments, being addressed, before the learned Court concerned, rather remaining completely unconnected hence with the bulk parcel. 11. The Director General of Police, Punjab is directed to make an intimation to the Registry of this Court qua whether all the investigating officers, and, all the chemical examiners, within the State of Punjab, have been imparted the above directed trainings. The above intimation be made within six months, and, be placed before this Court. 12. In case, in future this Court notices that any delibrate breaches or departures become yet visited qua the mandate of law, either by the investigating officers concerned, or by the chemical analysts concerned, thereupon, obviously this Court would become led to direct the Director General of Police, Punjab, or the officer concerned, to draw appropriate action, in accordance with law, obviously upon the errant police official(s) concerned, or qua the errant chemical examiner(s) concerned. 13. The afore observations are meant only for the disposal of the present petitions, and, shall not affect the merits of the trial arising from the FIR (supra).