ORDER : (Kuldeep Mathur, J.) 1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.46/2022 registered at Police Station Shribalaji, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers and the statements of Investigating Officer (PW-1) and Seizure Officer (PW-3), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution the contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 154 kgs. was being transported in a truck bearing registration No. RJ07GB9567 by the co-accused Humka Ram. The contraband illegally transported by the co-accused Humka Ram was to be supplied to the present petitioner who is also the owner of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact the offending vehicle has already been sold by the petitioner to co-accused Hukma Ram. The contraband has not been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. There is not an iota of evidence available on record indicating that the petitioner is even remotely connected with the alleged offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the co-accused Hukma Ram (S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.11811/2024) who has allegedly transported the contraband in the offending vehicle has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2024. 5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is sufficient direct/circumstantial evidence is available on record indicating involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused persons Hukma Ram and Laxman (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8758/2024) have already been enlarged on bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench while granting bail to the co-accused Hukma Ram reads as under:- “1. Through instant petition, applicant has come before this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with crime registered pursuant to First Information Report Number 46/2022 of Police Station Balaji, District Nagaur in respect of offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”). 2. Earlier, applicant made an endeavor for seeking bail by way of filing bail applications which were dismissed without considering the merits of the case since, it were not pressed with liberty to file again after recording of the statements of certain witnesses and Investigating Officer/Seizure Officer. Post recording of the statements of the witnesses, this third bail application has been filed by the petitioner. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the different submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that 154 Kgs. of contraband Poppy-Straw recovered from the applicant falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and the bar as contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. He thus, craves rejection of the applicants’ second bail application. 5. On perusal of the record and upon consideration of the submissions, it would be prima facie clear that statements of Investigating Officer Mukesh Kumar (PW-1) and Seizure Officer Shiv Singh (PW-3) have been recorded during the trial which suggest that mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the Act have not been followed as seizure officer did not get the proceedings under Section 52A conducted in this case before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Mangi Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1651 of 2023, decided on 12.07.2023), has held that such inventories, photographs and list of samples drawn with certification by Magistrates would constitute as a primary evi- dence. Therefore, when there is non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and where a certification of a Magistrate is lacking any inventory, photograph or list of samples would not constitute primary evidence. In Mohammed Khalid Vs. The State of Telangana (Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023 (SC), decided on 01.03.2024) Hon’ble the Apex Court has again ruled that:- “22. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating Officer for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence”. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered specific admissions of Seizure Officer in respect of Section 52A of the Act, arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly about the procedure of sampling adopted by the Seizure Officer during the alleged seizure, as noted from the challan papers and evidence produced, prima facie did not show the compliance of Section 52A of the Act in its true spirit. 7. Having considered the material available on record; the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant particularly the facts narrated above and the fact that applicant is in custody since 20.02.2023; that bail rejection order goes to show that applicant is not involved in any other case under the N.D.P.S. Act; that trial is likely to take its own considerable time and taking note of all these aspects, I do not intend to go into the merits of the matter but of the considered view that the rigor of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is duly satisfied, forasmuch this Court feels that the applicant has available to him substantial grounds so as to question the prosecution case and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in detention for an indefinite period therefore, I am inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 8. Consequently, this third bail application is allowed. 8. Consequently, this third bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Hukma Ram S/o Sawant Ram in F.I.R. No. 46/2022 of Police Station Balaji, District Nagaur, shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds of sufficient amount to the satisfaction of trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. This order is subject to the condition that accused, within 7 days of their release and sureties, on the day of furnishing bail, will also furnish details of their all bank accounts, with bank and branch name, in shape of an affidavit, and submit legible copy of their Aadhar cards as well as front page of Bank pass book, for smooth recovery of penalty amount, if there arise a need for recovery of penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C in future.” 9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the present petitioner is not worse than the case of the co-accused Hukma Ram who was allegedly transporting contraband greater than commercial quantity in the offending vehicle; the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner; Investing Officer (PW-1) in his statements recorded before the competent Criminal Court has stated that during the course of investigation no document establishing ownership of the petitioner over the offending vehicle was found by the investigating agency; the petitioner is in judicial custody. The prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 10. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shrawan Kumar S/o Ramu Ram, arrested in connection with FIR No.46/2022 registered at Police Station Shribalaji, District Nagaur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. 11. 11. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.