ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Kishan Sansi Son Of Shri Pappu Sansi seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.257/2024 dated 02.03.2024 registered at P.S. Kanota District – Jaipur, for the offence under Section 8 /20 of NDPS Act. The first bail application of petitioner was dismissed on 18.09.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the instant case is a fabricated case wherein present petitioner was planted by police. He referred two information memos prepared to comply provision under Section 42 of NDPS Act and further timeline of the recovery and submitted that there were discrepancies in the transmitting information about the proposed recovery. He further submitted that on very same day same search and seizure officer has already initiated the proceedings in relation to FIR No.254/2024 under section 8/20 of NDPS Act and he used same seal in effecting seizure in FIR No.254/2024 and thereafter in current FIR No. is 257/2024. He further submitted that the seal which was used while conducting the proceedings in FIR No.254/2024 was destroyed by Dr. Gautam (Inspector of Police) the then SHO of P.S. Kanauta but same seal was thereafter used at the time of seizure of samples and contraband articles. He further referred cross-examination of PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 and submitted that the material contradictions are sufficient to draw conclusion that the police has falsely implicated the petitioner without recovery from petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in case of State of Orissa Vs. Laxman Jena (2002) 3 AICLR 703 (SC) and submitted that non- compliance of mandatory provision under Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act is sufficient to grant bail to present petitioner. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Narayan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2023 (9 ) WLC 573 (Raj.) and Kalu Singh Vs. Laxman Jena (2002) 3 AICLR 703 (SC) and submitted that non- compliance of mandatory provision under Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act is sufficient to grant bail to present petitioner. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Narayan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2023 (9 ) WLC 573 (Raj.) and Kalu Singh Vs. CBN (bail application No. 10176/2025 order dated 11.09.2025) and submitted that present petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 7. The first bail application of present petitioner was considered by this Court on 18.09.2025 and we have observed as under:- 7. On 02.03.024, Dr. Gautam, SHO P.S. Kanota on receipt of an information has searched a room at Kalpna Nagar and found two persons Kishan and Mahesh were sitting and 13 plastic gunny were also stored. After following the process 13 gunny bags were seized and found that Kishan and Mahesh are responsible for storing around 129.980 Kgs of Ganja. During investigation he came to know about sell of 10 Kgs of Ganja to Jeetu Lal Jogi. During investigation, police has found that Ganja has been transported on a motorcycle for storage in said room which was in dilapidated condition. After arrest of both Mahesh and Kishan on 02.03.2024, a charge- sheet is filed against them under Section 8 /20 and 25 of NDPS Act but kept pending against Parevender under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. After framing the charge 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution which includes PW-6, Dr. Gautam (Search and Seizure Officer). 8. The first bail application of accused Mahesh was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 08.10.2024 whereas second bail application was dismissed on 04.04.2025 and third was dismissed on 24.04.2025 by same Co-ordinate Bench. Thereafter, Mahesh has filed 4 th Bail application and same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 26.08.2025 with liberty to file before the Trial Court. 9. Thereafter, Mahesh has filed 4 th Bail application and same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 26.08.2025 with liberty to file before the Trial Court. 9. The recovered quantity is commercial in nature and in case of grant of bail in matter relating to recovery of commercial quantity it is necessary that conditions enumerated under Section 37 of NDPS Act is satisfied. 10. In case of State of Meghalaya vs Lalrintluanga Sailo 2024 INSC 537 Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering a 3 Judge bench judgment in case of Customs, New Delhi vs Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549 has observed that while considering bail in a commercial quantity something more than prima facie grounds as to be existed in favor of accused which contemplates substantial and probable cause for believing that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Considering the judgment in case of State of Kerala vs Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 it was held that broad parameters laid down by the Supreme Court has to be followed while considering an application for bail moved by an accused involved under the NDPS Act. After considering the legal provisions, the bail granted to Smt. “X” by the High Court was canceled and she was directed to surrender before the Trial Court. 11. In case of NCB Vs. Mohit Agarwal (Criminal Appeal No. 1001-1002/2022) a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 37 of NDPS Act has observed that the length of period of custody is not a ground to release accused on bail. A bail granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Delhi was under challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NCB Vs. Kashif 2024 INSC 1045 and while remitting back the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted while keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the act along with the impact on society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally as that may ultimately frustrate the object and purpose of preamble of the Act. While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provision of of NDPS Act, which is mandatory in nature. 12. In case of Union Of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu Criminal appeal No. ..... While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provision of of NDPS Act, which is mandatory in nature. 12. In case of Union Of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu Criminal appeal No. ..... of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2351/2023) Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India and judgment in case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (2022) SCC Online SC 825 has observed that bail granted to two accused persons does not seem to be good and sufficient reason who were involved in drug trafficking. In order dated 28.03.2023, Supreme Court not only set aside the bail order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad but observed that it is necessary to record prima facie finding on involvement of applicant- accused and in absence of recording satisfaction the grant of bail is erroneous. 13. We have considered cross-examination of PW-6 Dr. Gautam (Search and Seizure Officer) so as to satisfy about condition No. (ii) under Section 37 of NDPS Act and other witnesses. Also compared his deposition with discrepancies as pointed out during arguments with cross-examination of other witnesses. After considering said material we are of the considered view that it is not sufficient to satisfy the condition under of NDPS Act. 8. In case of State of Orissa Vs. Laxman Jena (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred the judgement in case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev 1999 6 SCC 172 and held that the provision of law is required to be strictly complied in view of grave consequences which are likely to be followed on proof of illicit article. The Legislature has enacted and provided certain safeguards in various provisions of the Act including Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act in all cases which must be proved to have been strictly followed. 9. In case of Narayan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering different provisions has granted bail to a person who was in custody for 22 months after recording satisfaction of twin condition under section 37 of NDPS Act. 10. In case of Kalu Singh Vs. NCB (Supra) a Co-ordinate Bench has referred judgment in case of State of Orissa Vs. 10. In case of Kalu Singh Vs. NCB (Supra) a Co-ordinate Bench has referred judgment in case of State of Orissa Vs. Laxman Jena (supra) and observed that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo on grant of bail. 11. Having taken note of the entire circumstances, it is evident from the facts of the case that two persons, Kishan and Mahesh, were sitting at a place where 13 gunny bags were stored, and from these gunny bags, 129.980 kg of ganja was recovered. The recovered quantity is commercial. During investigation, it has also come to notice that 10 kg of ganja was sold to one Jeetu Lal Yogi. The material available on record indicated that even similarly placed accused Mahesh was not granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench and four times bail application(s) preferred by Mahesh were dismissed. The judgments as referred hereinabove in order dated 18.09.2025 by this Court clearly indicate that it is necessary for the Court to record satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, considering that when conditions are not fulfilled, the Court cannot grant bail in case of recovery of commercial quantity. The material also indicated that eight witnesses were examined so far by the trial court, and we have considered the cross-examination of witnesses, in particular PW-4, PW-6, and PW-7. Also considered different memos Ex. P-14, P-15, P-17, P-26, P-27, P-28, and P-38. In Ex. P-38, name of Constable Suraj is not mentioned in the table, but in GD brief, name of Constable Suraj is mentioned. In Ex. P-26, the time of search was mentioned as 6.25 a.m., but in other memos it indicated that it was in fact p.m. Therefore, there may be a case of bona fide mistake in mentioning a.m. in Ex. P-26. 12. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused Kishan on bail. 13. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused Kishan at this stage. 14. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused Kishan on bail. 13. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused Kishan at this stage. 14. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Kishan Sansi Son Of Shri Pappu Sansi is hereby dismissed. 15. The important issue is seizure proceeding initiated by Dr. Gautam on 02.03.2024 from possession of Jeetu Lal Yogi. After recovery from Jeetu Lal Yogi, police has registered FIR No. 254/2024 under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act. The memo which was prepared on 02.03.2024 at 4.30 a.m. in relation to recovery from Jeetu is part of FIR No. 254/2024, indicates that the seal used was destroyed at 4.45 a.m. on 02.03.2024. Exhibit P-27, prepared on 2.3.2024 at 9.45 p.m., indicates that the same seal was used by Dr. Gautam while reflecting recovery from Kishan and Mahesh. This seal was destroyed at 9.55 p.m. on 02.03.2024. 16. As we have noticed, two FIR Nos.254/2024 and 257/2024, were registered by Dr. Gautam, who was SHO of Police Station Kanota, Jaipur (East), on 02.03.2024, and he used the same seal in both cases, and both the cases relate to the NDPS Act. The provisions under the NDPS Act are too rigorous, and the legislature has provided certain safeguards in the Act, but Dr. Gautam, who was SHO of Police Station Kanota, has not taken care of these safeguards. Considering the aforesaid, it is appropriate to send a copy of this order to the DGP of Rajasthan for an inquiry and to submit a report with the proposed action in this regard to this Court within two months. 17. List the matter after two months for compliance report.