ORDER : T Mallikarjuna Rao, J. 1. Since these Criminal Petitions are filed, under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail, by different accused i.e., Crl.P.No.2313 of 2024 (filed by A.6); Crl.P.No.2334 of 2024 (filed by A.3); Crl.P.No.2379 of 2024 (filed by A.7) and Crl.P.No.2517 of 2024 (filed by A.2 and A.4) in same crime viz., Crime No.266 of 2023 of Yelamanchili Rural Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this Common Order. 2. A case has been registered against the Petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The Prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 26.12.2023 at about 7.00 PM, upon the receipt of credible information about illegal possession and transportation of Ganja, the S.I of Yelamanchili Rural Police station, secured the presence of mediators and rushed to the outskirts of Somannapalem village of Yelamanchili Mandal and found a black colour bag lying nearby cattle shed of L.Venkatarama Krishna. Upon search, they found six packets of Ganja, each packet weighing approximately 5 kgs, totaling 30 Kgs. The contraband was seized under the cover of mediators’ report. Subsequently, the S.I drawn two samples from each packet for chemical analysis and initiated further investigation based on the mediators’ report, leading to the registration of the case mentioned above. During the course of investigation, on 28.12.2023, at 11:00 AM, the Inspector of Police, upon credible information, accompanied by mediators and his staff, went to Somannapalem village. There, they apprehended six persons attempting to flee. Upon interrogation, A.1 to A.4 and two juveniles in conflict with law disclosed their identities. Their confessions led to the seizure of 150 kg of Ganja in the presence of mediators. A.1 to A.4 were remanded to judicial custody, while the juveniles in conflict with law were taken to the Juvenile Justice Board, Visakhapatnam. A.1 to A.4 confessed about the involvement of A.6 in the commission of offence. On 29.12.2023, A.6 and A.7 were arrested, and 40 kg of Ganja was seized, leading to their remand under the mediators' report. 4. A.1 to A.4 were remanded to judicial custody, while the juveniles in conflict with law were taken to the Juvenile Justice Board, Visakhapatnam. A.1 to A.4 confessed about the involvement of A.6 in the commission of offence. On 29.12.2023, A.6 and A.7 were arrested, and 40 kg of Ganja was seized, leading to their remand under the mediators' report. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners asserts that the Petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case; there is no element of truth in the allegations mentioned in the report; the alleged recovery attributed to the Petitioners are nothing but an absolute false and that out of suspicion fabricated the panchanama and further remanded them to judicial custody; Prosecution committed a breach of section 52A of NDPS Act by unilaterally conducting sampling without approaching the concerned Magistrate; A.1 has already been granted bail by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2024; Petitioners have been languishing in jail since more than 105 days; most of the investigation has been completed; Petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent- State has vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the Petitioners on the ground that the contraband involved in this case constitutes a commercial quantity. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced. 7. As seen from the common order passed by learned Special Judge for trial of offences under NDPS Act, Visakhapatnam in Crl.Mp.Nos.45, 237, 121, 57, 125 of 2024, A.1 was granted bail (vide Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2024). The trial Court has taken into consideration of the following facts to consider the bail application of A.1: Pragada Annapurna, the mother of A1, filed a petition (Crl.MP.No.5893/2023) under section 97 of the CrPC, alleging that on 25.12.2023, the Yelamanchili Rural Police forcibly took her son/A1 to the Police Station and wrongfully confined him there for three days. She sought the issuance of a search warrant. An Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant at 05:30 PM and found A1 at the Yelamanchili Rural Police Station. Subsequently, A1 was presented before the Court along with a report at 06:30 PM by the Commissioner. …………………….. She sought the issuance of a search warrant. An Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant at 05:30 PM and found A1 at the Yelamanchili Rural Police Station. Subsequently, A1 was presented before the Court along with a report at 06:30 PM by the Commissioner. …………………….. According to the bail order, the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner states that he was entrusted with the warrant on 28-12- 2023 at 04:45 PM. Subsequently, he proceeded to the Yelamanchili Rural Police Station where he found A1, along with others, including police personnel. The Commissioner inquired about the General Diary (G.D.) entry regarding the custody of A1, to which the Station House Officer (SHO) responded that there were no such entries. The SHO further explained that an FIR was registered on 26-12-2023 in Crime No.266/2023 under section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. He stated that A1 had been brought to the station just two hours prior. Based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the counsel argued that if A1 had indeed been apprehended along with others on 28-12-2023, there would certainly have been a corresponding entry in the General Diary 8. In the said facts of the case, it is obvious that the trial Court has entertained a doubt regarding the arrest of A.1 as contended by the Prosecution and was pleased to grant bail to the A.1 on 04.04.2024. As per the Prosecution’s case, A.1 to A.4 and two children in conflict with law were arrested and based on their confessional statements, contraband was seized from their possession. 9. When the Special Court entertains a doubt regarding the A.1’s involvement in the commission of the crime, this Court finds force in the Petitioners’ counsel’s contention. It is evident that such uncertainty would inevitably cast doubt on the involvement of the other accused individuals as well. The learned Special Judge has not considered the said aspect. 10. Another significant contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that the investigating officer failed to adhere to the prescribed procedure outlined in Section 52A of NDPS Act. 11. In Simaranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2023 LawSuit(SC) 859, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: Sub-section (3) of Sec.52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. 11. In Simaranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2023 LawSuit(SC) 859, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: Sub-section (3) of Sec.52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the police station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty-bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with subsections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. Hence, the act of PW-7 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr., (2016) 3 SCC 379 . This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case that substance recovered was a contraband. Hence, the case of the prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments insofar as the present appellant is concerned and quash his conviction and sentence. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 12. However, the Respondent-State contends that it has indeed adhered to the procedure outlined in Section 52A of NDPS Act. When such objections are raised, it becomes incumbent upon the investigation agency to provide the Court with substantial material justifying its contention. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 12. However, the Respondent-State contends that it has indeed adhered to the procedure outlined in Section 52A of NDPS Act. When such objections are raised, it becomes incumbent upon the investigation agency to provide the Court with substantial material justifying its contention. 13. Furthermore, it is argued that mediators' report fails to specify the location from which the investigating officer drew the samples from the contraband. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the contraband samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate. 14. The learned counsel for the Petitioners assert that if such particulars had been provided, they would have been able to argue whether a delay occurred in drawing samples and whether such delay is fatal to the prosecution's case. The learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on the decision in Kashif vs. Narcotics Control Bureau 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2881, wherein the Delhi High Court observed as follows: “23.The reason for strict time frame and collection of sample has been elucidated by a coordinate bench of this court in the judgment of Rishi Dev @ Onkar Singh v. State (2008 : DHC : 1513) in CRL.A. No. 757/2000 decided on 01.05.2008 wherein it was observed as under: “8.…The above passage shows that there is a time limit of 72 hours stipulated by the Narcotics Control Bureau for a seized sample to be deposited with the Chemical Examiner for testing. This rule is salutary because any attempt at tampering with the sample recovered from the accused can have fatal consequences to the case of the prosecution. Strict compliance has to be insisted upon in such an event. … … 19. This Court is unable to agree with the approach adopted by the trial court, especially its observations highlighted above. The record of the case should contain entry in writing about the sample being sent for testing within the time specified by the Narcotic Control Bureau. A strict compliance of this requirement has to be insisted upon. The reason is this. The sample that is kept in a police malkhana, under the seals of the police officers themselves, is still definitely under the control of those police officers. There is every possibility that the samples could be tampered and again re-sealed by the very same officers by again affixing their seals. The reason is this. The sample that is kept in a police malkhana, under the seals of the police officers themselves, is still definitely under the control of those police officers. There is every possibility that the samples could be tampered and again re-sealed by the very same officers by again affixing their seals. It is to prevent this from happening that earlier the sample is sent for testing to the CFSL the better.” xxx 28. What is reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, it cannot be the intention of the legislature that an application for sample collection can be moved at the whims and fancies of the prosecuting agency. Therefore, taking cue from the Standing Order 1/88, it is desirable that the application under 52A should be made within 72 hours or near about the said time frame. 29. In the present case, the application for drawing of sample and certification of seizure memo under section 52A NDPS was filed on 22.04.2022 i.e., after 51 days from the period of last seizure on 02.03.2022. 30. A period of 51 days, by no stretch of imagination, can be called a reasonable period for filing an application under section 52A NDPS for drawing the sample. It cannot be that the contraband lying in the custody of the Narcotics Department for 51 days, in their power and possession, is immune from tampering and mischief. Furthermore, no reasons have been furnished by the Respondent for the delay of 51 days for moving an application under section 52A NDPS.” 15. In Kurva Ramesh Vs. The State of Telangana MANU/TL/0259/2023, the High Court of Telangana State held that: 17. Section 52A(3) of the NDPS Act envisages that when an application is made to that effect, the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. Further, Section 52A(4) of the NDPS Act reads as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence." 18. Thus, certification made by the Magistrates regarding the inventory prepared, the photographs taken and the list of samples drawn would be treated as primary evidence in respect of such offence. Therefore, the Magistrates are under obligation to entertain the request of the Police officer concerned for certification without unreasonable or undue delay. 19. ……………. Therefore, this Court holds that there is every requirement on part of the learned Magistrates to state in clear terms the date on which the application for the purpose of certification is forwarded by the Police officer concerned, the date on which the task of verifying and issuance of certificates is taken up and the date on which the representative samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. 16. When the Petitioners’ counsel have raised specific contentions disputing the drawing of the sample, it is imperative to provide particulars regarding the whereabouts of the ganja before its presentation to the learned Magistrate by the investigating officer, as well as the timeline of when the contraband was produced before the learned Magistrate and when the samples were drawn. The absence of such particulars renders it difficult to ascertain whether the investigating officer adhered to the procedural requirements outlined under the relevant section. 17. As already noted, the Special Judge granted bail to the A.1. The facts of the present petitioners also stand on the same footing. If the release of A.1 would not impede investigation, then the release of other accused persons would similarly not hinder the investigation. 18. At this stage, the allegations against the Petitioners are subject to the trial's outcome. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until their guilt or innocence is determined. It is settled law that mere apprehension that the accused would tamper with the Prosecution evidence or intimidate the witnesses cannot be a ground to refuse bail unless the Prosecution shows that the Accused tried for such tampering/intimidation. 19. The Petitioners’ continued preventive custody cannot be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that they might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Most of the witnesses are shown to be official witnesses and the release of the accused would not cause hampering of investigation. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have got permanent abode, there is no possibility of fleeing from justice. Most of the witnesses are shown to be official witnesses and the release of the accused would not cause hampering of investigation. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners have got permanent abode, there is no possibility of fleeing from justice. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 20. Given the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the Petitioners/A.2, A.3, A.4, A.6 & A.7 under the following conditions: (a) Petitioners/Accused shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yelamanchili. (b) On release, the Petitioners/Accused shall appear before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yelamanchili, on every Monday between 08.00 AM and 12.00 Noon for a period of six (06) months and thereafter on every alternate Monday in between 08.00 AM and 12.00 Noon for a period of three months or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier. (c) The Petitioners/Accused shall not directly or indirectly contact or threaten the witnesses under any circumstances and any such attempt shall be construed as an attempt to influence the witnesses and shall not tamper evidence and shall cooperate with the investigation. (d) It is made clear that the Petitioners shall scrupulously comply with the above conditions and breach of any of the above conditions will be viewed seriously and prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. However, nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 21. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.