ORDER : 1. The applicants have preferred this application for grant of bail as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.206/2022 registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur for offence under Section 20 (c) of the NDPS Act. 2. Prosecution case is that on the basis of secret information that the accused persons were illegally transporting contraband Ganja in a truck bearing registration No.OR-04/H-0865 for sale from bordering State of Odisha to Nagpur, (Maharashtra), through Chhattisgarh, the said fact was recorded at daily diary Entry No.17 and in compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, information has been sent to the CSP, Urla. The vehicle was intercepted and the present applicants were apprehended. Applicant Ranjan Kumar Sahu is the driver whereas other coaccused is the conductor of the said vehicle. As per the procedure, a search has been made in the alleged truck and 16 plastic bags of contraband Ganja totalling 4.80 quintals amounting to Rs.24 lakhs was seized from the joint possession of the present applicant. Samples were obtained and the same were sent to the FSL. It has been confirmed that the said samples were Ganja. The applicants also confessed that the said Ganja was being transported, as the same was handed over to them by Ranjan Babu, truck owner and mobile number of the said person was also given. During investigation, it was found that the vehicle belongs to one M. Tirupati Patre, to whom the earlier owner namely, Sharmishtha Zena has sold the vehicle. Based on such allegations, offence has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Though investigation is complete and charge sheet has also been filed in the month of November, 2022, however, charges have not been framed so far and, therefore, there is huge delay in trial. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of DELHI) {2023 SCC OnLine SC 352}, it is submitted that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of DELHI) {2023 SCC OnLine SC 352}, it is submitted that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution. She further submits that compliance of Sections 42 and 55 of the NDPS Act has also not been made inasmuch as the Investigating Officer, at the time of seizure, has only affixed the seal of the concerned Police Station, though as per the provisions of the said Section, personal seal of the officer concerned was required mandatorily. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that Rule 10 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which deals with drawing the samples, has also not been followed. Even the seized articles were sent for chemical examination with a delay of 4 days, which creates doubt on the part of the prosecution. She further submits that the present applicants are only driver and conductor of the vehicle and therefore they had no information about the material kept inside the bags. The applicants are bound to comply with the order of their master. They are in jail since 16.5.2022 & 15.5.2022 respectively and they have no criminal past. Considering all these aspects, the applicants may be released on bail. Reliance is placed in the matters of Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2008) 16 SCC 417 , State of Orissa Vs. Sitansu Sekhar Kanungo, 2002 SCC OnLine SC 1296, Gautam Prasad Satnami & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2007 SCC OnLine Chh 55, Basant Rai Vs. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3319, Naim Khan Vs. State of MP {MCRC No.56923/2022}, Lal Singh Vs. Union of India {MCRC No.19745/2022}, Kashif Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau {Bail Application No.252/2023}, Omprakash Vs. State of UP {Bail Application No.9660/2021}, Navneet Jat Vs. State of MP {MCRC No.19405/2022}, Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund, (2009) 12 SCC 161 , Indrajeet Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {CR.A. No.1397/2022}, Union of India Vs. Mohanlal & Another, (2016) 3 SCC 379 , Amani Fidel Chris Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau {CRL Appeal No.10271/2015}, Mohd Muslim alias Hussain (Supra) and Anil Kumar Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {MCRC No.1422/2023}. 5. Bal Mukund, (2009) 12 SCC 161 , Indrajeet Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {CR.A. No.1397/2022}, Union of India Vs. Mohanlal & Another, (2016) 3 SCC 379 , Amani Fidel Chris Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau {CRL Appeal No.10271/2015}, Mohd Muslim alias Hussain (Supra) and Anil Kumar Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {MCRC No.1422/2023}. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that due procedure has been complied with during the course of investigation by the IO and there is no flaw in compliance of the same. Lacunae, if any, in investigation shall be considered at the time of trial. In compliance of Section 42, the officer concerned has immediately forwarded the report to the CSP, which was duly acknowledged by the said officer. Learned State Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the seizure memo contains the seal of the concerned Police Station. He submits that 4 samples which have been taken were duly sent to the FSL and the FSL has also found Ganja in the said packets. Twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicants have no criminal past. Considering the fact that huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants which has been hidden under the bags of cashew nuts, the applicants are not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents available on record. 7. In the matter of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 the law relating to exercise of bail application in the offences under the NDPS Act has been dealt and the following was observed at para-18:- 18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522, it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522, it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95 , 1990 SCC (Cri) 65 as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) ‘24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.’ 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socioeconomic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 8. In the matter of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891, it was held thus:- “…………...The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” 9. In the matter of Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627 , a principle has been reiterated that the independent witnesses have turned hostile, when there is reliable official witness is no ground for acquittal under the NDPS Act. It was materially observed at para-12 which reads thus:- “12. It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case [see Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808 , (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 420].” 10. In the matter of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100 , the issue of conscious possession when a contraband has been found in a private vehicle has been explained and the following was observed at para-26:- “26. What amounts to “conscious possession” was also considered in Dharampal Singh v. State Of Punjab, (2010) 9 SCC 608 , (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1431, where it was held that the knowledge of possession of contraband has to be gleaned from the facts and circumstances of a case. The standard of conscious possession would be different in case of a public transport vehicle with several persons as opposed to a private vehicle with a few persons known to one another. The standard of conscious possession would be different in case of a public transport vehicle with several persons as opposed to a private vehicle with a few persons known to one another. In Mohan Lal v. State Of Rajasthan, (2015) 6 SCC 222 , (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 881, this Court also observed that the term “possession” could mean physical possession with animus; custody over the prohibited substances with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on this knowledge.” 11. In the case at hand, the contraband was being transported in a secret manner by concealing the same under the bags of cashew nuts from the bordering State of Odisha and commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered. Considering the principles laid down in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh (Supra), this Court is of the view that if any procedure has not been followed, the same shall be seen during trial after leading evidence in this regard, though this Court, prima facie, is of the view that substantial compliance has been done at this stage. This Court does not find any reasonable ground to believe that the applicants are not guilty of offence and they may not commit any offence while on bail. 12. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the applicants concern the aspect of sample and seizure procedure. Since huge quantity of contraband has been seized from the joint possession of the applicant and this Court has already observed that substantial compliance has been done, the judgments relied on by counsel for the applicants are of no help to the applicants. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the bail application is rejected. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law and in expeditious manner.