Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The facts leading up to this petition are as follows:

These petitioners are accused of offences punishable under Section 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act', for brevity) and they are said to be related to each other.

It is the case of the petitioners that, they had been to Mahalaxmi Temple at Kolhapur for darshan and while they were returning, their vehicle, an Indica car, was stopped and they were falsely implicated in allegedly having carried Hashish of commercial quantity.

The Excise Inspector, State Vigilance Squad, lodged a complaint on 22.06.2013, to state that, at about 3.30 pm, the Excise Superintendent, State Vigilance Squad, Bangalore, along with his staff were patrolling the high way near Hotel Prarthana on Bangalore-Poona Road at Nippani. At about 4.00 pm, they observed one Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. MH-07/J-130 and one Tata Indica car bearing registration No. MH-07/1-5157, both moving together from Maharashtra towards Belgaum. The vehicles were intercepted, on suspicion, and were checked. It is claimed that, 3905 grams of Hashish were found in two bags concealed in the said vehicles and therefore, a case has been registered against the petitioners for the offences as aforesaid. The petitioners having been taken into custody had approached the Court below seeking bail on several grounds, the Court below had rejected the same.

2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, the Hashish, allegedly seized, was not on the person of any of the petitioners. It was said to be contained in two bags, one of which was concealed under the rear passenger seat in the Indica Car as well as in the rear passenger seat in the Scorpio vehicle. There is therefore, no indication that, any of the petitioners were carrying the said substance.

The learned Counsel would further point out that, the petitioners were all travelling in one car and not in two cars as alleged. This is a seriously disputed question and he would further point out that, the panchanama had not been drawn up at the spot, where the vehicles were allegedly intercepted, as it is evident from the panchanama that, the recording of it had started at about 3.30 pm and had concluded at 8.00 pm. It is also forthcoming from the said panchanama that, the entire raiding party had come to Belgaum at 6.00 pm. Therefore, it is evident that the panchanama was not recorded at the spot, where the vehicles were intercepted, but was recorded at Belgaum, since recording of panchanama was said to have been concluded only at 8.00 pm on the said date.

Therefore, when it is seen that, substance that is said to have been seized was not on the person of any of the petitioners, but concealed under the passenger seat of the respective vehicles, the petitioners being mulcted with the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under the NDPS Act, is therefore, misconceived and results in a miscarriage of justice.

The learned Counsel would also point out that, the petitioners being implicated in the present case is, in the background that, a large quantity of Hashish had washed up on the seashore of Devghad and it is in order to explain the same, that the authorities are proceeded to implicate all and sundry including the present petitioners and seeks to question the justification of the petitioners being accused of the offence, when no such material was found on their person.

3. While the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to justify the petitioners being detained in the custody, as the offence alleged is a serious one and the punishment attributed is imprisonment for 20 years and a fine of Rs. 2 lakh.

4. Having regard to the above circumstances, from the fact that, the punishment that is attracted is so severe, would require the prosecution to estab