ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. By the impugned judgment and order dated August 02, 2024, the High Court has declined the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent-State. 4. The appellant, along with several co-accused, figured as an accused in First Information Report (FIR) No. 32/2021 dated 28.08.2021 registered with Police Station STF Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant committed offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 8 and 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 5. The FIR reveals that Ganja weighing 51 kgs. was recovered from the appellant’s car and that the appellant had fled while the co-accused were apprehended in course of a raid. Since the appellant absconded, the trial was split up and the co-accused were tried. The co-accused have since been acquitted by the Special Court (NDPS Act) inter alia owing to omission to follow the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 52 of the NDPS Act. There is one crucial observation in the judgment of the special court which is quoted hereunder: “...Keeping all the above facts in mind, it can be concluded that the investigating officer of the case, Ketan Adlak, influenced his subordinates and fabricated a fictitious incident against the named accused and made the named accused guilty of a serious crime like NDPS despite the named accused being innocent, due to which the named accused are continuously in judicial custody since 19.08.2021 and are also deprived of their basic human rights.” 6. The acquittal recorded by the special court has been carried in appeal before the High Court, and the appeal is reportedly pending. 7. It was also submitted on an earlier occasion before us by the respondent-State that the investigating officer of the case, Ketan Adlak, has f iled an application before the High Court in the pending appeal seeking expunction of the adverse remarks made against him by the special court. Such application is also stated to be pending. 8. By an order dated January 9, 2025, we had called upon the State to indicate what departmental action has been taken against the investigating officer. Such affidavit is not forthcoming. 9. Such application is also stated to be pending. 8. By an order dated January 9, 2025, we had called upon the State to indicate what departmental action has been taken against the investigating officer. Such affidavit is not forthcoming. 9. Be that as it may, having regard to the observations made by the special court and acquittal having been recorded upon disbelieving the entire prosecution case, which has not been disturbed till date, there is no question of the appellant being detained in custody in connection with the same case. Should the High Court reverse the finding of the special court upon believing the prosecution case, the necessity of the appellant standing trial would arise. 10. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that this appeal should be accepted and the order of the High Court set aside. Ordered accordingly. 11. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested in connection with proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, he shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court. 12. It is made abundantly clear that depending upon the result of the appeal before the High Court, further proceedings may be continued against the appellant in accordance with law. 13. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. 14. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed.