Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 299 (KAR)

Chandrakanth v. State of Karnataka

2022-03-04

M.G.UMA

body2022
JUDGMENT M.G. Uma, J. - The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 305 of 2021 is accused No. 3 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 9846 of 2021 is accused No. 2 in Crime No. 57 of 2020 of Seshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru, registered on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri. Krishnamurthy M L, which is now pending in Spl.C.C. No. 188 of 2021 on the file of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases, Bengaluru, for contravening Section 8(c) punishable under Section 20(b)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief as set out in the charge sheet is that on 30.08.2020 at about 10.15 a.m., CW1 - the informant received credible information that accused No. 5 is possessing ganja and is near BBMP playground on the backside of Om Shakti Temple, VV Giri Colony and selling the contraband to the general public in his autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-02 AC 3989. The said information was reduced into writing in the station house dairy and sought permission from CW13 - the Assistant Commissioner of Police to hold a raid and to seize the contraband. After getting necessary permission, CW1 along with other staff and panchas held a raid. CW13 being the Gazetted Officer was present at the spot and the personal search of accused No. 5 was held in his presence. During such search 2.100 kgs of ganja, Rs. 1,500/- in cash and a bag along with the auto rickshaw mentioned above were seized under the seizure mahazar. On enquiry, accused No. 5 gave information that he used to purchase ganja as the same was being supplied to him by accused No. 4. 3. On 06.09.2020 CW1 along with other witnesses went to Madanayakanahalli of Tumkur District, took accused No. 4 to his custody and 200 grams of ganja was also seized from his custody. On enquiry, accused No. 4 informed that he along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 had concealed 150 kgs of ganja in a place dug out which is 8 kms away from Mahagav on the right side of NH 50 leading from Kalaburagi to Bidar, within the jurisdiction of Kamalapura Police Station. On enquiry, accused No. 4 informed that he along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 had concealed 150 kgs of ganja in a place dug out which is 8 kms away from Mahagav on the right side of NH 50 leading from Kalaburagi to Bidar, within the jurisdiction of Kamalapura Police Station. Accordingly, accused No. 4 led the police to the spot and produced 150 kgs of ganja before the police, in the presence of mahazar witnesses on 08.09.2020. 4. It is the further contention of prosecution that accused No. 4 further stated that he can identify accused Nos. 2 and 3 and accordingly, identified them when they were near Moodboll Tollgate near Chittapura. Accordingly, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also taken into custody. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have informed that they were purchasing ganja from accused No. 1 and used to store in an underground storage dug in Sy. No. 214/2B of Kalagi Taluk of Kalaburagi District situated in Lachu Nayak Thanda belonging to Smt. Manibai. Accordingly, accused Nos. 2 and 3 led the Investigating Officer and the mahazar witnesses to the said place and showed the underground storage where 1,200 kgs of ganja in 600 packets (i.e., 2kgs each) were stored. The said contraband was seized after collecting the sample and the canter bearing registration No. AP-22/X-5948 which was used for transportation of ganja was also seized under the mahazar. It is stated that accused No. 1 used to supply ganja from Orissa to accused Nos. 2 and 3 which was in turn being transported in the canter referred to above belonging to accused No. 2 and being stored in the underground storage in Sy. No. 214/2B belonging to Manibai who is the grand mother of accused No. 3 and thereafter, the contraband was being transported to Bengaluru and other places with the help of accused Nos. 4 and 5 for the purpose of selling it to general public and thereby all the accused have contravened Section 8(c) punishable under Section 20(b)(C) of NDPS Act. 5. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are before this court filing two separate petitions, seeking to enlarge them on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel for Sri. Nasir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V.S. Hegde, learned Special Public Prosecutor-II for Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are before this court filing two separate petitions, seeking to enlarge them on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel for Sri. Nasir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V.S. Hegde, learned Special Public Prosecutor-II for Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that even according to the case of prosecution, these petitioners were apprehended on 09.09.2020 at about 1.00 p.m. near Moodboll Tollgate. Admittedly, no contraband were seized from their possession. It is also the contention of prosecution that accused no. 4 had given voluntary statement and had led the Investigating Officer to produce the contraband concealed by him. The so-called seizure of the commercial quantity of ganja was, if at all at the instance of accused No. 4, but not at the instance of these petitioners. The petitioners are the residents of distant places. The underground storage said to be situated in Sy. No. 214/2B in Lachu Nayak Thanda, of Kalagi Taluk of Kalaburagi District does not belong to any of the petitioners. Even the vehicle said to have been seized from the spot also do not belong to the petitioners. There is absolutely no material to connect the petitioners to the offence in question. The petitioners are in judicial custody for more than 15 months and the investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. They are not having any criminal antecedents and are ready to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. 8. Learned senior counsel on the basis of IA.1 of 2022 wherein additional grounds for grant of bail was urged, contended that the voluntary statements of the petitioners dated 09.09.2020 have not been produced before the Special Court on that date or immediately thereafter. But the same were produced on 18.09.2020 i.e., after about 9 days. Serious doubt arises about the conduct of the Investigating Officer in not producing the voluntary statements and the mahazars before the Special Court, forthwith. But the same were produced on 18.09.2020 i.e., after about 9 days. Serious doubt arises about the conduct of the Investigating Officer in not producing the voluntary statements and the mahazars before the Special Court, forthwith. He further contended that even though it is alleged that the petitioners were apprehended on 09.09.2020 near Moodboll Tollgate, Chittapura, and their voluntary statements were recorded, the remand report discloses that these petitioners were apprehended on 10.09.2020 at 6.30 a.m. There are serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the case made out by the prosecution, which goes to the root of the matter. 9. Learned senior counsel also submitted that no local police were informed about the search and seizure said to have been conducted and the seized contraband were never produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Even if the case of the prosecution that the petitioners were knowing about the storage of contraband in the underground storage, the same will not amount to possession of the contraband. There is no recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of these petitioners. Under such circumstances, there are no prima facie materials against the petitioners to constitute any of the offences. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petitions. 10. Per contra, Sri. V.S. Hegde, learned Special Public Prosecutor-II for Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petitions submitted that initially accused No. 5 was apprehended and the contraband weighing 2.100 kgs was recovered from his possession. On the basis of information provided by him, accused No. 4 was apprehended and 200 grams of ganja was recovered at his instance. On the basis of information provided by accused No. 4, 150 kgs of ganja was seized and thereafter accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein were apprehended. On the basis of the information provided by them, huge quantity of 1,200 kgs of ganja were recovered. All these accused categorically stated that it was accused No. 1 who was supplying the ganja, which was being stored by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the underground storage and they used to supply to accused No. 4 who in turn used to store in the isolated places and used to supply to accused No. 5 to sell the same to the general public. 2 and 3 in the underground storage and they used to supply to accused No. 4 who in turn used to store in the isolated places and used to supply to accused No. 5 to sell the same to the general public. Commercial quantity of ganja weighing 1352.300 kgs were recovered at the instance of all the accused in the present case at various places. There are sufficient materials to prima facie prove seizure of 1,200 kgs of ganja at the instance of these petitioners from the underground storage and the canter bearing registration No. AP-22/X-5948 was also seized by these petitioners as the same was used to transport the contraband, which was found at the spot. The land in question where the underground storage was found with the commercial quantity of ganja belongs to the grand mother of accused No. 3. The facts and circumstances of the present case discloses that all the accused are involved in the commission of offence since long and they are systematically dealing with drugs after storing the same in the underground hide out to enable them to distribute it to others in smaller quantity. The procedure contemplated under law is followed by the Investigating Officer and the charge sheet is also laid before the Trial Court. Since there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence and there is every possibility of they committing the offence, if enlarged on bail, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail in view of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. 11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor-II further contended that strong prima facie materials are placed before the Court to constitute reasonable grounds to believe the commission of the offence and unless the Court is of the opinion that the accused are not guilty of such offence and they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail, there are not entitled for grant of bail. The facts and circumstances of the case makes out reasonable and strong prima facie grounds against the accused for having committed the offence. Therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor-II further submitted that the Investigating Officer followed the procedure as contemplated under law. The facts and circumstances of the case makes out reasonable and strong prima facie grounds against the accused for having committed the offence. Therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor-II further submitted that the Investigating Officer followed the procedure as contemplated under law. Apprehending the accused, recording their voluntary statements and seizing the contraband at their instance, the statements and the mahazars were drawn by the Investigating Officer at each stage of the investigation and the same were reported to the Special Court on regular intervals. It is premature for the accused to contend that there is delay in submission of the statements and mahazars before the Special Court. There is absolutely no delay in submission of the mahazar before the Special Court and the petitioners cannot take advantage of the procedural lapses, if any at this stage. 13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor-II further submitted that even though the petitioners were shown to be apprehended on 10.09.2020, the material on record discloses that they were taken into custody on 09.09.2020 at 1.00 p.m. in Moodboll Tollgate near Chittapura and thereafter, they led the Investigating Officer and the mahazar witnesses to the land belonging to Manibai and produced huge quantity of ganja which were stored in the underground storage after completing the procedure of seizing such a huge quantity of ganja from the isolated place in Sy. No. 214/2B situated in Lachu Nayak Thanda of Kalagi Taluk, Kalaburagi District and after completing the procedure of drawing the mahazars and collecting the sample etc., the accused were brought to the Special Court and produced before it in accordance with law. If the distance between the places, quantity of contraband seized at the instance of each of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the case where many accused are involved in the commission of offence are to be taken into consideration, there is absolutely no delay in producing the accused and the mahazars before the Trial Court. He further contended that this Court cannot conduct mini trial at this stage about these procedural aspects ignoring the strong prima facie materials which give rise to the reasonable grounds to prove commission of the offence by the accused and disentitles them from seeking bail in view of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of both the appeals. 14. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of both the appeals. 14. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?" My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 15. Initially, FIR came to be registered on 30.08.2020 in Seshadripuram Police Station in Cr. No. 57 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act on the basis of credible information received by the Investigating Officer and apprehending accused No. 5 along with the autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA 02 AC 3989 in VV Giri Colony, Seshadripuram, Bengaluru along with 2.100 kgs of ganja. Thereafter, the investigation was undertaken wherein accused No. 4 was apprehended based on the information provided by accused No. 5 and it is stated that 200 grams of ganja has been recovered from him. It is also stated that the voluntary statement of accused No. 4 was recorded on 07.09.2020 and on the basis of same, he led the Investigating Officer and the mahazar witnesses to Mahagav which is on NH 50 leading from Kalaburagi towards Bidar. The seizure mahazar discloses that the Investigating Officer along with accused No. 4 and mahazar witnesses left the police station at 4.00 p.m. and thereafter proceeded to Kalaburagi to reach there at 8.00 a.m. on 08.09.2020. Accused No. 4 asked to stop the vehicle about 8 kms away from Mahagav on NH50 at 9.30 a.m. and shown a ditch/trench which was 8 feet in depth and produced 6 bags of ganja. The total ganja recovered at the instance of accused No. 4 was 150 kgs from out of 6 bags. Samples were drawn separately and the mahazar was drawn on 08.09.2020 from 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 noon. Another seizure mahazar dated 09.09.2020 discloses that with the help of accused No. 4, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were identified near Moodboll Tollgate near Chittapura and they were taken into custody on the same day at 1.00 p.m. Accused Nos. Samples were drawn separately and the mahazar was drawn on 08.09.2020 from 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 noon. Another seizure mahazar dated 09.09.2020 discloses that with the help of accused No. 4, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were identified near Moodboll Tollgate near Chittapura and they were taken into custody on the same day at 1.00 p.m. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also subjected to interrogation who have given the information that they have stored ganja in a place which is about 40 to 50 kms away from the jurisdictional Magistrate and therefore, the Investigating Officer specifically stated that it was not feasible to obtain search warrant from the jurisdictional Court as there is possibility of information leakage. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 led the Investigating Officer and the panchas to Sy. No. 214/2B belonging to one Manibai which is a sheep farm. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 removed the mud in the sheep shed, opened an iron lid and both of them get into the cellar. It was found that the accused have stored 1,200 kgs of ganja in the said storage which was stored in 600 bags of 2 kgs each and were recovered at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under the mahazar. It is revealed that accused No. 1 was supplying ganja from Orissa to accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who in turn used to store the same in the underground storage/hideout/trench and used to further distribute/sell to various other persons. During investigation, it was revealed that accused No. 2 used to transport the contraband in the canter vehicle bearing registration No. AP-22/X-5948 and the accused have stored the contraband in the cellar dug out in Sy. No. 214/2B belonging to Smt. Manibai who is the grandmother of accused No. 3. These accused through accused No. 5 were transporting and selling the ganja in Bengaluru and other places and thereby, involved in the commission of offence and were found in possession of commercial quantity of ganja which is punishable under Section 20(b)(C) of NDPS Act. 16. Considering the fact that the credible information was first received in Seshadripuram Police Station on 30.08.2020 and the FIR was registered, accused No. 5 was apprehended along with the contraband. On the basis of information provided by accused No. 5, accused No. 4 was apprehended in Bengaluru and 200 grams of ganja was seized from his possession. 16. Considering the fact that the credible information was first received in Seshadripuram Police Station on 30.08.2020 and the FIR was registered, accused No. 5 was apprehended along with the contraband. On the basis of information provided by accused No. 5, accused No. 4 was apprehended in Bengaluru and 200 grams of ganja was seized from his possession. He gave information about accused Nos. 2 and 3 and also about storing of 130 to 150 kgs of ganja in Mahagav in a trench covered with bushes and offered to lead the police to produce the same. It was thereafter accused No. 4 led the police to Kalaburagi and produced 150 kgs of ganja which was recovered under the recovery mahazar. It was thereafter accused No. 4 identified accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the Investigating Officer took accused Nos. 2 and 3 to his custody, who in turn disclosed the information about storage of huge quantity of ganja in the underground storage and led the police to the said place. Accordingly, the seizure mahazar dated 09.09.2020 was drawn from 14.00 to 18.00 hours. This mahazar discloses that it was accused Nos. 2 and 3 who have led the police to the spot in question, removed the mud which covered the iron lid in a sheep shed. When the iron lid was opened by accused Nos. 2 and 3, it led to a cellar where the accused have stored 1,200 kgs of ganja. The material on record discloses that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were brought back to Bengaluru and they were produced before the Special Court on 10.09.2020. These facts and circumstances discloses that lengthy and tedious procedures were undertaken in unearthing the storage of huge quantity of ganja at the instance of various accused persons at various places. It is pertinent to note that accused No. 1 who is said to be the main accused, who used to supply ganja to accused Nos. 2 to 5 from Orissa, is still absconding. 17. If the contention of the prosecution and the accused are considered in the light of these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that reasonable materials are placed before the Court to support the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos. 2 to 5 from Orissa, is still absconding. 17. If the contention of the prosecution and the accused are considered in the light of these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that reasonable materials are placed before the Court to support the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein were apprehended at the instance of accused No. 4 and they led the Investigating Officer to recover 1,200 kgs of ganja from the underground storage along with the vehicle bearing registration No. AP-22/X-5948 used in the commission of offence. The Investigating Officer placed sufficient material to make out a strong prima facie grounds regarding commission of the offence. 18. Even though the learned senior counsel for the accused contended that there is a delay in submitting the mahazar and producing accused Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned Magistrate and that there is serious discrepancies and contradictions in the case made out by the prosecution, the same will not lead to a conclusion that the prosecution has fabricated the documents against the accused. Even if there is delay in production of petitioners and the mahazars before the Trial Court, the same is to be explained by the Investigating Officer before the Special Court. The facts and circumstances of the case where huge quantity of ganja weighing 1352.300 kgs were recovered at various places at Bengaluru, and also at Kalaburagi district which is at a far off place and when it is found that the contraband was concealed in underground bunker in a systematic manner, in as many as 600 bags of 2 kgs each, the same cannot be considered lightly by diverting the attention towards the so-called delay in producing the accused and the mahazars before the Trial Court. There are no glaring inconsistencies in the case made out by the prosecution nor there is inordinate delay in production of accused or submitting the mahazars. It is for the Investigating Officer to convince the Trial Court about the procedural delays if any, during trial. But the fact remains that there are reasonable grounds made out by the prosecution to connect the accused to the offence in question. 19. It is for the Investigating Officer to convince the Trial Court about the procedural delays if any, during trial. But the fact remains that there are reasonable grounds made out by the prosecution to connect the accused to the offence in question. 19. Even though it is contended that since there is a delay in submitting the seizure mahazar before the Special Court, it is to be held that those mahazars were concocted by the Investigating Officer against these petitioners. But the position of law is clear in view of Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, where the presumption is provided for presuming that the official acts have been regularly performed. Therefore, this is not the stage for doubting or finding fault with the Investigating Officer, even if there is some delay in submitting the mahazars before the Special Court. This Court while considering the bail petition cannot hold a mini trial about the procedural lapses to give a finding as to whether there was deliberate delay on the part of the Investigating Officer and whether there is concoction of any documents. When strong prima facie materials are placed before the Court without there being any glaring irregularities, it is to be presumed that the official act on the part of the Investigating Officer was performed regularly. 20. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the procedures contemplated under law are not followed by the authorized officer in holding the search and seizure and as such the same is vitiated. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supdt., Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Vs. R. Paulswany (2000) 9 SCC 549 is of importance to be taken into consideration. The Hon'ble Apex Court opined that it would be too early to take into account and judge the matter regarding non compliance with the formalities, at the stage of considering the bail application of an accused and held at para 6 as under: "6. In the light of Section 37 of the Act no accused can be released on bail when the application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the light of Section 37 of the Act no accused can be released on bail when the application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is unfortunate that matters which could be established only in offence regarding compliance with Sections 52 and 57 have been pre-judged by the learned Single Judge at the stage of consideration for bail. The minimum which learned Single Judge should have taken into account was the factual presumption in law position that official acts have been regularly performed. Such presumption can be rebutted only during evidence and not merely saying that no document has been produced before the learned Single Judge during bail stage regarding the compliance with the formalities mentioned in those two sections." (Emphasis supplied) 21. The learned Special Public Prosecutor-II for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of UP, (2014) 5 SCC 509 , wherein it is held that the expression 'custody' appearing in Section 27 would not mean formal custody but it includes any kind of surveillance, restriction or restraint by the police. It is also held that even if the accused is not formally arrested at the time when the accused gave the information, the accused was for all practical purposes in the custody of the police. The Hon'ble Apex Court placed its reliance on its earlier decision in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) 1 SCC 272 in support of its finding that if the accused is within the ken of surveillance of the police during which his movements are restricted, then it can be regarded as custodial surveillance and therefore, so much of information given by the accused in custody in consequence of which a fact is discovered is admissible in evidence, whether such information amounts to a confession or not. 22. The materials on record disclose that huge quantity of ganja which is of commercial quantity was recovered at the instance of the accused. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that it was accused Nos. 22. The materials on record disclose that huge quantity of ganja which is of commercial quantity was recovered at the instance of the accused. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that it was accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein, who led the police to discover the storage of 1,200 kgs of ganja in 600 bags in a bunker, along with the vehicle used in transportation of the same. These materials cannot be ignored at this stage. 23. The materials on record constitute reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are guilty of the offence alleged. The manner in which the offence was committed also reasonably leads to an inference that the petitioners were involved in commission of the offence since quite for sometime. Under such circumstances, it cannot be believed that these petitioners are not guilty or that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail, which is a condition precedent to enlarge the accused on bail as provided under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. This view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others Vs. Rajesh and Others (2020) 12 SCC 122 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court once again considered the requirements of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, while dealing with the bail application filed by the accused and referred to its earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Another (1999) 9 SCC 429 and held that the satisfaction of twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b) is sine-qua-non for grant of bail. It is appropriate to extract paras 19 and 20 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "19. 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 the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante 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 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. 20. The expression "reasonable grounds" means 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 requires 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 object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under 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." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the position of law is well settled that the satisfaction of twin requirements as provided under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act is sine-qua-non for releasing the person accused of commission of offence involving commercial quantity, even after providing opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release. 24. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in placing reasonable materials to constitute contravention of Section 8(c) punishable under Section 20(b)(C) of NDPS Act against these petitioners. In view of these materials on record, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of such offence and they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. On the other hand, the prosecution is successful in placing materials which reasonably leads to a belief that the petitioners are guilty of such offence and they are likely to commit the offence if enlarged on bail. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, I answer the above point in Negative. On the other hand, the prosecution is successful in placing materials which reasonably leads to a belief that the petitioners are guilty of such offence and they are likely to commit the offence if enlarged on bail. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, I answer the above point in Negative. Accordingly both the petitions are dis missed.