ORDER :

This is a successive bail petition filed by accused No.2 praying to enlarge him on bail in relation to a case registered by respondent/NCB in NCB F.No.48/1/5/2021/ BZU for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 23, 27(A), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ for short].

2. The petitioner had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3921/2021 seeking similar prayer and the said petition was dismissed by an Order dated 14.07.2021.

3. Heard the learned senior counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent.

4. The learned senior counsel submitted that, this Court dismissed the earlier petition when the investigation was still pending and now the investigation is over and the entire material is available on record including the FSL Report and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court praying to enlarge him on bail.

5. The learned senior counsel contends that the alleged ganja was concealed underneath the coconut bags and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner was in conscious possession of ganja. He contends that the petitioner was only the owner-cum-driver of the truck which was transporting the load of coconuts and he was not aware that there was ganja in the truck. He contends that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as the secret information said to be received by the complainant was not reduced into writing and reported to his superior officer. He further contends that no quantitative analysis of the seized material has been carried out and in the absence of quantitative analysis, prosecution must fail. He contends that the search and seizure has been carried out during night hours on a private vehicle, which is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act. He has also contended that the samples were drawn on 12.04.2021 and the FSL report was received on 11.06.2021, which is not within 15 days and it is in violation of Standing Instructions 1/88, hence on this ground also the petitioner is entitled for bail.

6. The learned senior counsel has also contended that no analysis by separation of the seeds, stems, buds and flowers etc, has been carried out and therefore it cannot be said that the quantity of the ganja seized is commercial quantity. It is further contended that the prosecution has nowhere alleged that the petitioner was engaged in financing illicit traffic or harbouring the offenders, hence Section 27A of the NDPS Act also does not attract. He therefore submits that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offences and therefore seeks to allow the petition and release the petitioner on bail.

7. The learned senior counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2000)2 SCC 513 to contend that it is imperative on the Officer who receives a credible information that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has been concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, to take it down in writing and he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. He contends that the action of the officer, who claims to have exercised it on the strength of such unrecorded information, would become suspect.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent/NCB contends that this Court has already rejected the prayer of the petitioner and there are no changed circumstances to once again consider his bail petition. Pointing out to the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3921/2021 he contends that this Court has observed that an information report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act was prepared and forwarded to the superior officer prior to conducting seizure. Further, a mahazar was prepared for seizure of ganja weighing about 93.8 kgs. which was concealed in large brown col