ORDER : 1. This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 23/2020, registered at Police Station New Mandi Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 8/21, 25 NDPS Act. 2. The first application for bail was dismissed as not pressed vide order 04.09.2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during Nakabandi on 02.02.2020, the present petitioner along with coaccused Jaskaran Singh was intercepted and from a white plastic bag carried by them, total 25 boxes of NrxTramadol Hydrochloride Tablets 100mg Trio-SR were recovered. Each box contained 25 strips and as such the number of total strips recovered from 25 boxes, comes to 625 strips. Further, each strip (10 tablets) weighed 4.05 gms. thus, the total weight 625 x 4.05 = 2531.25 gms. In furtherance of the aforesaid recovery of contraband, FIR against petitioner for the offences under Sections 8/21, 25 NDPS Act was lodged on 03.02.2020. The challan against the petitioner has been filed on 27.07.2020 and charges have been framed on 09.03.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of 27 prosecution witnesses as on 10.11.2022, only 2 prosecution witnesses including Seizure Officer (PW-2) has been examined before the competent criminal court. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and entire investigation has been conducted in violation of the various provisions of NDPS Act so also Standing Orders, issued by Government of NDPS being Instruction No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989. Drawing attention of the court towards statement of Seizure Officer (PW-2), learned counsel submitted that out of total 25 boxes alleged to be recovered from the petitioner, a sample of only 1 strip from 1 box was taken and then sent for FSL. Learned counsel submitted that since the samples were not collected in an accurate manner, there is possibility of there being no contraband in any one or more boxes cannot be ruled out. 4. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the embargo contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted. Learned counsel submitted that since the samples were not collected in an accurate manner, there is possibility of there being no contraband in any one or more boxes cannot be ruled out. 4. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the embargo contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted. Reliance was placed on orders of coordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Prabhu vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. CRL MB No. 1141/2023, decided on 06.04.2023, Ramchandra vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. CRL MB No. 1162/2022, decided on 27.05.2022 and also on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Netram vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 673/2008, decided on 18.10.2013. 5. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing incarceration since 02.02.2020. Learned counsel further submitted that out of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined as on 10.11.2022. In view of aforesaid, it can safely be stated that the trial is not likely to be completed in near future and thus, looking to the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that no expiry date was mentioned on the boxes recovered from the petitioner and all the boxes had same batch number. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the contraband TRIO-SR was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and co-accused and thus, no fault can be found in the action of the Seizure Officer. Learned Public Prosecutor prayed that the present bail application may be rejected. 7. Heard. 8. The relevant portion of the Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989, issued by Government of India under Section 52A of NDPS Act, reliance whereupon has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner is reproduced herein-below: “2.1 All drugs shall be classified, carefully, weighed ad sampled on the spot of seizure. 2.2 All the packages/containers shall be numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the persons from whose possession the drug is recovered and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. 2.3........... 2.4........... Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the persons from whose possession the drug is recovered and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. 2.3........... 2.4........... 2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects the packages/container may be carefully bunched in lots on 10 package/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of, 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 2.6........... 2.7........... 2.8...........” 9. The relevant portion of the statement of Seizure Officer (Ram Pratap) (PW-2) recorded before competent criminal court is also reproduced herein-below: ^^eSa ;g ugha crk ldrk fd VªkWekMksy o VªkWekMksy gkbMªksDykjkbZM esa D;k varj gksrk gS] eq>s irk ugha gS fd ;g nksuksa nok foØsrkvksa dh fHkUu&fHkUu Jsf.k;ksa esa vkrs gksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QnZ ÁŒihŒ 01 esa xksfy;ksa dh ,Dlik;jh fnukad ugha fy[kh gq;h gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ÁR;sd irs esa ls lSEiy ugha fy;k x;kA ;g lgh gS fd ÁR;sd fMCcs esa ls lSEiy ugha fy;k x;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eq>s ugha irk fd mDr eksVjlkbZfdy dk ekfyd dkSu FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjh fu'kkunsgh esa cuk;k x;k ?kVukLFky dk uD'kk ekSdk ÁŒihŒ 21 esa dgh Hkh frjkgk ugha gS o ÁŒihŒ 21 ds ÁFke ykbZu esa Hkh lh ls Mh Hkkx esa lM+d vke pkSjkgk vafdr gSA** 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 , has observed as under: “........Negation of bail is the rule and its grant and exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for.” 11. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Md. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100 considered the position of law with respect to Section 37 of NDPS Act and was pleased to hold that the test which the High Court are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed. 12. Similarly, the Apex Court while considering the contours of Section 37 at time of deciding a bail application in Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 , held 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.” 13. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved.” 13. In the present case, as per prosecution, the contraband involving commercial quantity was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The NDPS Act does not provide for the manner in which the samples are to be drawn. The guidance is thus, taken from Standing Instructions No. 1/89 and Standing Instructions No. 1/88. The Standing Instructions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner generally deals with the situations where samples are being taken from different packets/containers and normally, as per aforesaid instructions, it is advisable to draw one sample from each packet/container in case of seizure of more than one packet/container. 14. As noticed above, the recovered contraband was contained in one white plastic bag, having 25 boxes of NrxTramadol Hydrochloride Tablets 100 mg Trio-SR in it and each box contained 25 strips, totalling to 625 strips. Further, each strip contained 10 tablets, thus the total number of tablets comes to 6,250. From the case file, it is evident that packets seized were of identical size and weight bearing identical marking and batch numbers. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the recovered tablets are of identical size and weight with identical marking and batch numbers, they can be considered as one unit and thus, one representative sample out of one box having same weight and quantity of tablets would be sufficient. 16. It is worthwhile to note here that judgment in the case of Netram (supra) was rendered by this Court while adjudicating an appeal in which the question of procedural violation in the matter of sampling was considered and Court noticed that failure to collect individual samples from each gunny bag caused great deal of prejudice to the accused. In the present case, it is however to be noticed that prima facie, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner on account of sending of one strip for FSL. The petitioner at the stage of trial is entitled to claim that all the strips were not containing the psychotropic substance and thus, can ask for retesting/re-sampling in accordance with law. In other words, this is not a case of mixing of samples as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thus, it is not necessary that one strip from each packet needs to be sent for FSL examination. 17. In other words, this is not a case of mixing of samples as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thus, it is not necessary that one strip from each packet needs to be sent for FSL examination. 17. As far as argument with regard to grant of bail on the ground of the period of custody is concerned, suffice it to state that petitioner is facing incarceration since 02.02.2020 only. The charges against the petitioner have been framed on 09.03.2021; trial has already commenced, thus, it cannot be said that there is an inordinate delay in conducting the trial. The argument thus deserves to be rejected straightaway. 18. In the result, the petitioner could not substantiate his argument that the twin conditions in Section 37 of the NDPS are fulfilled in the present case, so as to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 19. Consequently, the application for bail is dismissed.