ORDER : ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J. 1. These second bail applications under Section 483 BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.302/2024 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur (West) (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter before the concerned Court for offences punishable under Sections 8/20 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner, Balkishan was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 whereas the first bail application of the petitioner, Indrajit Mandal was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024. Now, these second bail applications have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioners Balkishan and Indrajit Mandal are in custody since 29.07.2024 and 17.09.2024, respectively, and as such, they have suffered incarceration of about one year and seven months and one year and four months, respectively. Arguing the case of petitioner, Balkishan, it is submitted that he is an auto driver. It is submitted that substance which is said to be recovered from the auto of the petitioner was loaded by co-accused, Indrajit. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband. Arguing the case of petitioner, Indrajit, it is submitted that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of co-accused, Balkishan. 4. Counsel submit that the recovered contraband does not fall within the definition of “Ganja” because it consists of leaves and stalks of the cannabis plant. It is submitted that the leaves and stalks of cannabis plant are expressly excluded from the definition of Ganja. The Central Government Notification S.O. 527 dated 16th July, 1996, which specifies small and commercial quantities of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, does not prescribe any small or commercial quantity in respect of the cannabis plant. Counsel submit that it has been admitted by the Seizure Officer in his testimony that the seized contraband contains leaves and stalks. The Central Government Notification S.O. 527 dated 16th July, 1996, which specifies small and commercial quantities of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, does not prescribe any small or commercial quantity in respect of the cannabis plant. Counsel submit that it has been admitted by the Seizure Officer in his testimony that the seized contraband contains leaves and stalks. Counsel submit that there is total non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as alleged recovery was made on the basis of prior information, but said information was neither reduced in writing, nor sent to the immediate superior officer and during the course of cross-examination, this fact has candidly been admitted by the Investigating Officer. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh versus State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that total non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act is not permissible and will defeat the conviction. It is further submitted that despite the availability of the independent witnesses, no independent witness was associated during the search and seizure proceedings. Counsel further submit that association of the independent witnesses contemplated under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C (Section 103 of BNSS) is not a mere formality and concerned officer is required to make all endeavour to associate the independent witnesses from the same vicinity. He cannot escape from his obligation merely by saying that a person refused to become an independent witness and if any person refuses to become a witness, his name should be recorded and proper action should be initiated against him for disobeying the order of the public servant. The Seizure Officer, in his testimony, has admitted that the entire seizure operation was videographed. However, owing to a technical glitch, the videography was not conducted through the e-Sakshya App and was instead recorded on a mobile phone, which was subsequently transferred to a pen drive. It is submitted that there is discrepancy in the weight of the Contraband and in such circumstances, possibility of tampering with the Contraband cannot be ruled out. 5. However, owing to a technical glitch, the videography was not conducted through the e-Sakshya App and was instead recorded on a mobile phone, which was subsequently transferred to a pen drive. It is submitted that there is discrepancy in the weight of the Contraband and in such circumstances, possibility of tampering with the Contraband cannot be ruled out. 5. Counsel further submit that alleged recovery was made on 29.07.2024 while inventory was prepared on 23.08.2024 and same day samples were drawn however, samples were deposited in the FSL on 10.09.2024 with a delay of about 18 days. Lastly, it is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, Balkishan whereas one other case under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, has been registered against the petitioner, Indrajit Mandal. It is contended that there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 13 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submit that the continued incarceration of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that contraband (Ganja) weighing 61.170kgs has been recovered in this matter which is above commercial quantity and therefore, by virtue of provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioners. He contends that name of petitioner, Indrajit Mandal surfaced at very initial stage even prior to registration of the FIR. He further contends that on the same day, he was found in possession of Contraband (Ganja) weighing 189Kgs and Rs.2,19,000/- for which separate FIR No.872/2024 has been registered against him at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West). It is submitted that according to the FSL report, contraband which has been recovered in this case is “Ganja”. Counsel submits that with regard to the weight of the contraband, the minor discrepancy observed can reasonably be attributed to moisture absorption during the monsoon season. Such variation, in the absence of any other incriminating material, cannot by itself lead to an inference of tampering. Further, at the stage of consideration of bail, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be examined in detail, as the same pertain to matters which are required to be adjudicated by the trial Court during the course of trial. 7. Further, at the stage of consideration of bail, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be examined in detail, as the same pertain to matters which are required to be adjudicated by the trial Court during the course of trial. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Indrajit Mandal, submits that although FIR No.872/2024 was registered on the same day, no material or evidence has been produced by the Investigating Agency to establish that the alleged contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. 8. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12894/2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Bhagchand versus State & Ors. while granting bail held as under: "For ready reference, the definition as provided in Section 2 of the NDPS Act is reproduced herein as under:- "2. Definition.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (iii) "cannabis (hemp) means- (b) ganja, that is, the flowering of fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding) the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever, name they may be known or designated; and" Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the observations as made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 15.05.2017 (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.3904/2017 titled as "Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagaram Vs. State of Rajasthan), as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in mind the definition provided in Section 2 of the NDPS Act; that till the filing of the charge- sheet, it was not specified by the prosecution that the leaves and seeds cannot be termed as Ganja; that benefit of bail cannot be declined to the accused-petitioners in absence of classification of the contraband recovered in this case, even when the charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution; that this Court is of the opinion that the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied in this case; and that trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserves to be accepted." 10. It is settled that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. 11. The petitioners have been in custody for over one year and seven months and one year and four months, respectively. There appears no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Thus, the petitioners' fundamental right to speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stands infringed. Prolonged incarceration generally militates against the cherished right to personal liberty, and in such a situation, conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of the cases. 12. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioners as noted above, especially considering the statement of the seizure officer, as also considering the fact that petitioner, Indrajit Mandal has been granted benefit of bail by this Court in FIR No.872/2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the second bail applications. 13. 13. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – (1) Balkishan S/o Late Shri Ramkishan and (2) Indrajit Mandal S/o Gaurchand Mandal , shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only), out of which, one surety must be furnished by the close family members of the petitioners, each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 14. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in the first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. It is further directed that the petitioners shall share their mobile numbers (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and they shall not switch off their mobile phones for longer period, intentionally. 15. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 16. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court. 17. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 18. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.