ORDER : 1. Accused in Spl.C.C.No.2291/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. NCB F.NO.48/1/18/2023/BZU registered by Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b) (ii) (C), 27 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short), is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is the case of prosecution that based on the credible information received on 26.04.2023, the team of officers of NCB had intercepted the Petitioner at about 12.15 hours when he arrived at Bengaluru in Prashanti Express Train from Bhubaneshawar, Odisha. Upon enquiry, the suspect revealed his name and also admitted that he was carrying ganja illegally and from the three bags which he was carrying contraband article allegedly, ganja totally weighing about 45kg 700gms was recovered and seized under a Panchanama. The seized contraband article as well as Petitioner were brought to the Police Station and after registering the FIR, Petitioner was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed before the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.2291/2023 was rejected on 09.01.2024 and therefore, Petitioner is before this Court seeking regular bail. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is a youngster and he is in custody from 26.03.2023. Trial in the case is yet to commence. Though in the three bags which allegedly was carried by the Petitioner, 20 bundles of contraband articles were seized, during the process of proceedings under section 52A of the Act, only two samples of the contraband article were taken and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The said procedure is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund , (2009) 12 SCC 161 . Accordingly, he prays for allowing the Petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent who has filed Statement of Objections has opposed the petition. He submits that Petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and he is involved in another case registered for offence punishable under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the Petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent who has filed Statement of Objections has opposed the petition. He submits that Petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and he is involved in another case registered for offence punishable under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act. Contraband article seized in the present case is of commercial quantity and in view of rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act his bail application needs to be rejected. He submits that Petitioner hails from Kerala and it would be difficult to secure his presence in the event he is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the bail Petition. 6. Petitioner was apprehended in the present case based on the credible information received by the officers of NCB on 26.04.2023 and from the three bags which the petitioner was carrying, contraband article ganja totally weighing 45kg 700gms was recovered and seized under a panchanama. Perusal of the material goes to show that contraband article was found in 20 separate bundles which were wrapped in brown coloured tape and packed in the bags which the Petitioner was carrying. Recovery Mahazar would go to show that the 20 bundles were cut open and the contraband article was thereafter homogeneously mixed by the officers of the NCB. 7. A perusal of the proceedings conducted under Section 52A of the NDPS Act would go to show that only two samples of contraband articles were drawn and forwarded to FSL for the purpose of chemical examination. In the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund supra referring to Standing Instruction 1/88 in Paragraph Nos.7 and 36 it is observed as follows: "7. The manner in which a sample of narcotic is required to be taken has been laid down by the Standing Instruction No. 1/88, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: "(e) While drawing one sample in duplicate from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative drug in equal quantity is taken from each package/ container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot." "36. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. Standing Instruction No.1/88, which had been issued under the Act, lays down the procedure for taking samples. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. Standing Instruction No.1/88, which had been issued under the Act, lays down the procedure for taking samples. The High Court has noticed that PW-7 had taken samples of 25 grams each from all the five bags and then mixed them and sent to the laboratory. There is nothing to show that adequate quantity from each bag had been taken. It was a requirement in law." 8. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the procedure for taking sample has not been correctly followed by the Investigation Officer in the present case. Rule 10 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 2022 provides for drawing the samples and the same reads as follows: " Drawing the Samples.- (1) One sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn from each package and container seized. (2) When the packages and containers seized together are of identical size and weight bearing identical marking on colour test by the drugs identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages and containers may carefully be bunched in lots of not more than ten packages or containers, and for each such lot of packages and containers, one sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn: Provided that in the case of ganja, poppy straw and hashish (charas) it may be bunched in lots of not more than fourty packages or containers. (3) In case of drawing sample from a particular lot, it shall be ensured that representative sample in equal quantity is taken from each package or container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot." 9. In view of the above, it is very clear that one sample in duplicate is required to be drawn from each package/container. In the case on hand, the contraband articles which were found in 20 bundles were homogenously mixed and packed into two bundles and thereafter two samples have been collected from the said two bundles. Petitioner aged about 24 years, is in custody for more than two years. Trial in the case is yet to commence. 10. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "19. Petitioner aged about 24 years, is in custody for more than two years. Trial in the case is yet to commence. 10. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime". 11. In the earlier criminal case registered against him undisputedly Petitioner is on bail. So far as the present case is concerned, since the proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is defective, the seizure itself becomes vitiated in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALMUKUND supra. Since the trial in the case is not yet commenced, the chances of the case being disposed off on merits in the near soon is very remote. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Respondent can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following: ORDER : The Petition is allowed. The Petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.C.No.2291/2023 pending before the Court of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. NCB F.NO.48/1/18/2023/BZU registered by Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b) (ii) (C), 27 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, subject to the following conditions: a) The Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and out of the same one shall be local surety for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. b) The Petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons. c) The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. d) The Petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.