JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, Sri.Sabeel Ahmed, Sri.Vadiraj P.Vadavi, Sri.Rahul Shrikant Bhushi respectively and Sri.Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for respondent in all the cases. 2. Crl.P.No.102262/2025 is filed by accused No.6, Crl.P.No.102321/2025 is filed by accused No.8, Crl.P.No.102459/2025 is filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.102471/2025 is filed by accused No.3 respectively filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C . [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] to grant bail in Crime No.110/2025 of Gangavathi Town Police station for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) 23(b)of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-1985. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 28.05.2025, the PSI of Gangavathi town Police station, Gangavathi at about 9.30 a.m. when he was on patrolling duty, he received a credible information that some unknown persons who had come in two cars were attempting to sell ganja on the road in front of the ITI college, Gangavathi town. On receiving said information, the PSI along with his sub-staff i.e. panchs went to the spot, conducted a raid on the said persons and seized 1806 grams Hydro Ganga in two cars which was kept in the dicky worth Rs.18,06,000/- in the presence of panchs. They also seized eight mobile phones, two cars on the spot and thereafter registered a case against the petitioners and others. Based on the seizure mahazar and complaint, the SHO registered a case, leading to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, these petitioners were remanded to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences; they have not committed any offences; the police have not seized anything from the petitioners and the contraband was seized from the possession of accused Nos.2 and 5 respectively. The petitioners are no way concerned either to the cars or the ganja in question; petitioners are in judicial custody since the date of their arrest and they are ready to abide by any conditions which are to be imposed by this Court, and thus prayed for grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State contended that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these petitioners are guilty of the alleged offences. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State contended that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these petitioners are guilty of the alleged offences. The contraband seized is of intermediate quantity; if bail is granted, they may jump the bail conditions and would commit similar offences and tamper with prosecution witnesses, thus, prayed for rejection of petition. 6. Having heard on both side and on perusal of material available on record, it discloses that on 28.05.2025 at 2.45 p.m., the first informant and his sub-staff conducted a raid on these petitioners and others, and found 1806 grams of ganja worth Rs. 18,06,000/-, 8 mobile phones, two cars in the presence of panchas and gazetted officers. They arrested the petitioners, drew up the panchnama and lodged the complaint. 7. On perusal of the Seizure Panchnama and report of complainant, nowhere the first informant has stated that ganja was seized from the possession of these petitioners, but it was seized from the dicky of cars, which belongs to accused Nos.2 and 5 respectively. It shows that these petitioners are not owners of cars seized in this case. 8. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that, the cars are not belonging to the petitioners and nothing is recovered from the possession of petitioners and therefore, rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to the case on hand and petitioners are not an habitual offenders. 9. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Section 37 of the NDPS Act which reads as under: "Section 37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.]." 10. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that, although the contraband alleged to have been seized from two cars and though it would amount to intermediate quantity, the same is not seized from the person of petitioners, and they are nowhere concerned to the cars and ganja seized by the first informant. 11. On perusal of the material available on record and as per the contents of FIR, it is clear that ganja was not seized from the possession of these petitioners, and the same was seized from the cars and said cars are not belonging to these petitioners, but they belongs to accused Nos.2 and 5 respectively. Under such circumstances, prima facie there are no materials forthcoming in the records, to satisfy that, there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 8 are guilty of the offences. However, the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37(1)(d) of the NDPS Act being satisfied and also considering the seriousness and gravity of the crime, I am of the considered opinion that these cases are fit cases to grant bail to the petitioners - accused No.1, 3, 6 and 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER : (1) Crl.P.No.102262/2025 filed by accused No.6, Crl.P.No.102321/2025 filed by accused No.8, Crl.P.No.102459/2025 filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.102471/2025 filed by accused No.3 are hereby allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER : (1) Crl.P.No.102262/2025 filed by accused No.6, Crl.P.No.102321/2025 filed by accused No.8, Crl.P.No.102459/2025 filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.102471/2025 filed by accused No.3 are hereby allowed. (2) The petitioners – accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 8 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime in Crime No.110/2025 of Gangavathi Town Police station for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) and 23(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-1985 on they executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners – accused Nos.1, 3, 6 and 8 shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; (ii) They shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency till conclusion of the investigation; (iii) They shall appear before the Trial Court regularly; (iv) They shall mark their attendance before the respondent - police on 1 st and 16 th of every month in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., for a period of six months or till filling of final report, whichever is earlier; On violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted automatically stands cancelled.