JUDGMENT Pranay Verma, J. - Since these applications arise out of the same crime number and are related to the same offence they have been heard together and are being decided by the common order. 2. They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers. 3. These are first applications under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The applicants are implicated in connection with Crime No.219/2022 registered at Police Station Nai Abadi, District Mandsaur (MP) for offence punishable under Section 8/15, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant Yunus is in custody since 05.09.2022 and applicant Ghanshyam is in custody since 24.02.2023. 4. As per the prosecution, on receipt of a secret information, the Police party reached the informed spot and recovered total 246 kg 400 gm. Contraband poppy straw from the possession of applicant Yunus which was being transported by him in a Mahindra Pick Up vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-01-GC-1869 without a valid license. The allegation against the applicant Ghanshyam is that he had provided the contraband for being transported. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that in an identical case M.Cr.C. No.30722/2022 (Jaivardhan S/o Sudarshan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), this Court has allowed the third bail application of the co-accused on 02.08.2022 on the ground that the sample obtained from the contraband seized was not in accordance with law, as the entire batch of contraband was mixed and thereafter the samples were taken from it. It is submitted that in the present case also, the alleged 14 bags were found to be having 246 kg. 400 gm. of poppy straw, whereas, 1 bag had 23 kg of the said contraband and admittedly these bags were mixed together and two samples were taken from it and none of them had commercial quantity of contraband. Thus, it is submitted that the applicants' case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of Jaivardhan (supra). Hence, it is submitted that the bail application be allowed and he be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the contraband seized from the applicants, no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. Hence, it is submitted that the bail application be allowed and he be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the contraband seized from the applicants, no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary as also the order passed by this Court in case of Jaivardhan (supra), this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants. Accordingly, without commenting anything on merits of the matter, the present applications for grant of bail are allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac. Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance, as and when directed. 8. It is also directed that the applicants will abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 9. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. Certified copy as per rules.