JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 21.11.2022 at 5:20 hours, while the police party was patrolling and reached near Janjadwapur crossing, one person was coming from Debiyapur on foot. On seeing the police personnel, he turned towards Jadwapur road and when the police tried to speak him, he started running, thereafter, he was followed and caught after 30 paces away. After being asked the reason for running, he confessed his guilt. Upon being apprised that under NDPS Act he has option to be searched by some gazetted officer or the magistrate, he gave his consent to be searched by the police officials who caught him. Written consent was taken from him and after that he was personally searched and bag held in his hand was also searched. From the bag, 11 wrappers were found, total weight of which was found to be 554 grams, out of which 40 gram was taken as a sample and remaining contraband was sealed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is total non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act. The applicant has not been searched by the gazetted officer or by the magistrate. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2022. The applicant has explained his criminal history in para 13 of the bail application. There is no other case under NDPS Act against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is total non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act. The samples have been drawn on the spot and not in front of the magistrate. Prosecution has not obtained any certificate from the magistrate as required under Section 52A of NDPS Act. No photographs of the substance have been taken. Even no application has been filed before the magistrate under sub section 2 of Section 52A of NDPS Act. The alleged contraband has been seized and representative samples have been drawn without the permission of the concerned magistrate. List of samples so drawn have not been certified by the magistrate. The process of drawing the samples is not under supervision of the magistrate and the entire exercise has not been certified by the magistrate. 5. The alleged contraband has been seized and representative samples have been drawn without the permission of the concerned magistrate. List of samples so drawn have not been certified by the magistrate. The process of drawing the samples is not under supervision of the magistrate and the entire exercise has not been certified by the magistrate. 5. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the applicant has a criminal history of 9 cases and therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, he could not show anything from the record that there is compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Bothilal v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 498". Emphasis is on para 16 of the judgment. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906", wherein the Court while relying on the judgment of "Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 ", has held that drawing of samples from all the packets at the time of seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal (supra). 8. So far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 ". Emphasis is on para 49 of the judgment. 9. Perused the record. 10. From perusal of the record, prima facie it appears that recovery was effected from polythene carried out by the accused and allegedly the said polythene contained 554 gram of alprazolam and prima facie there appears to be a clear non-compliance of the mandate of Section 52 A of NDPS Act as drawing of representative samples have not been done in presence of the magistrate. There is no record to show that samples have been enlisted and the correctness of the list of sample so drawn have been certified by the magistrate, neither there are any photographs of the substance which were taken in presence of the magistrate, thus, prima facie mandate of Section 52A(3) NDPS Act is not followed. 11. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bothilal (supra), recovery made by the prosecution prima facie becomes doubtful being an act of violation of Section 52A of NDPS Act, hence, following the law explained in the case of 12. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi): 2023 Livelaw (SC)260, the first test of Section 37 of NDPS Act is satisfied in this case. The applicant has no criminal history of the offence under NDPS Act and the criminal history of rest of the cases cannot be portrayed as a bar as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma (supra), hence, the second test is also satisfied. 13. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made herein above, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 14. The bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant, Yogendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 357/2022, under Sections 8/22 NDPS Police Station -Sadarpur, District -Sitapur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.