ORDER Savitri Ratho, J. This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with Athagarh Excise P.R. No.55 of 2023-24 corresponding to Special Case No.07 of 2023, pending in the file of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Athagarh for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act. 2. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on 07.11.2023 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Athagarh. This case is listed before me as BLAPL No.11527 of 2023 filed by co-accused-Sinu Beero has been rejected by this Court by order dated 17.10.2023. 3. The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 30.07.2023 at about 4. 15 a.m. 100 Kgs of non-duty paid ganja has been seized from the conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner and co-accused, Sinu Beero who were travelling in a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.OR-02-BJ-9191. As they could not produce any documents in support of the transportation, the ganja was seized and they were arrested. 4. Mr.Suraj Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 30.07.2023. Investigation has been completed and chargesheeet has been filed. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of non-compliance of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. (only one independent witness has been examined in place of two) and non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. He has drawn attention of the Court to the document where option of the petitioner under Section - 50 of the NDPS Act has been taken and submits that it does not bear the signature of any independent witness. In support of his submission, he relies on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Raghu @ Rahul Rajput Thakur v. State of Orissa reported in (2022) II ILR, Cuttack-590, Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani and others v. State through Inspector of Police reported in (2004) 12 SCC 266 and Sk.Raj @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga v. State of West Bengal reported in (2018) 9 SCC 708 . 5. Ms.S.Mishra, learned Addl. 5. Ms.S.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail stating that 100 Kgs of ganja has been recovered from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner for which Section 37 of the NDPS Act will operate as a bar for releasing him on bail. She further submits that there has been substantial compliance of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. and compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. She submits that Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied with and there has been substantial compliance of Section 100 of the Crl.P.C. and as one independent witness has been examined. In absence of any prejudice being caused to the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on account of alleged noncompliance and his case is not covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Raghu @ Rahul Rajput Thakur (supra) as no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. She further submits that the alleged violation of the provisions can be better considered during trial. In support of her submission, she relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Ku. Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2023) SCC online SC 1262 (paragraphs-62-66), State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh reported in (1994) 3 SCC 299 (paragraphs 7 and 23), State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar reported in 2005 (4) SCC 350 (paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 14) and the decision in the case of Raghu @ Rahul Rajput Thakur (supra), (paragraphs-20-22) and Rahul Pratap Singh v. State of Orissa reported in 2022 (3) ILR, Cuttack 1270 (para-26). 6. Hearing is concluded and Judgment is reserved. 7. Ms.S.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel is directed to submit the case diary for perusal of the Court.