JUDGMENT : (Prayer: C-32B.For Bail in Crime No.12 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.) 1. The petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused was arrested, on 29/01/2020 and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under sections 8(c), 20(b),(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.12 of 2020, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on a secret information, the police team headed by the de-facto complainant went to the place of occurrence, on 29/01/2020 at about 7.00 am and they were looking for the suspect and at about 7.50 am, the secret informer identified one person, who was found having traveller bag. On enquiry, that person told that his name is Rajasekaran. On enquiry and search, he was found in possession 20 kgs of ganja and further process was undertaken. On the basis of the confession statement, he was arrested and remanded to custody and ever-since, he is in custody. 3. Seeking bail, this petition came to be filed by the petitioner making out several grounds, both legally as well as factually. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the GDR entry, source of information has not been properly recorded and even in the FIR, no information has been made with regard to the source of information. So according to him, very registration of the FIR and the GDR entry is not proper. 5. The second contention is that the police alleged to have measured the contraband along with gunny bag and if it is deleted, then it will come under the non commercial quantity. For that purpose, he would say that 25 grms of samples were taken from each bags and reached the forensic lab only found at 21 grms, which is evident from the statement of the forensic expert. According to him, if such a calculation is done, it will naturally come under the non commercial quantity. He would further submit that section 57 notice was not properly served. The reply that was given by the request witnesses have not been properly mentioned and section 42 of NPDS Act is also violated. So according to him, when the procedural violation is noticed, there is no prima facie prove to show that it is a commercial quantity, he is entitled for bail. 6. The reply that was given by the request witnesses have not been properly mentioned and section 42 of NPDS Act is also violated. So according to him, when the procedural violation is noticed, there is no prima facie prove to show that it is a commercial quantity, he is entitled for bail. 6. He would also rely upon the judgment in the case of M. Suresh Vs. Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Chennai (Crl.OP No.21517 of 2003, dated 11/07/2003) for the purpose of argument that when the contraband is measured along with the bag, it is not proper. He wanted to draw the same analogy of the above said facts to this case also. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this plea has been raised by the petitioner for the first time and no such plea has been taken with regard to the measurement. It is further stated that all the procedural violations pointed out by the petitioner are not for this court to decide and it can be a matter for consideration during the course of trial. According to him, prima facie, this petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity. So, he has to satisfy the requirement of section 37 of the Act. 8. He would further submit that the petitioner is having similar nature offence in Crime No.5 of 2019. When such being the habitual nature of the petitioner, he is not entitled for bail. 9. Perusal of the CD file, it is seen that repeated bail applications filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Now CC No.1 of 2022 is also tried by the Special Court. The procedural violation that was pointed out by the petitioner can be a matter for discussion and consideration by the trial court during the course of trial. The measurement is also a matter for trial, which is a factual issue as rightly pointed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. It is seen that the petitioner was detained under Goondas Act, on 09/02/2022 and now the period is also expired. When this petitioner is facing a similar case. But however, detention order was quashed in HCP No. 30 of 2022 on technical grounds. The factual circumstances of this case shows that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is no guarantee that during the bail, he will not commit any or similar offence. 11. When this petitioner is facing a similar case. But however, detention order was quashed in HCP No. 30 of 2022 on technical grounds. The factual circumstances of this case shows that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is no guarantee that during the bail, he will not commit any or similar offence. 11. So, I am of the considered view that this is not a fittest case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 12. In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. But however, considering the duration of the custody of the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial process and complete the same within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.