ORDER :

Heard.

1. This is repeat bail application. Earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. The applicant has moved this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.362/2019 registered at Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence under Section 20 (b) ii (c) of NDPS Act.

3. Prosecution case is that upon receipt of Mukhbir information when the vehicle was intercepted on the road, huge quantity of ganja was found being carried.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged commission of offence. He would submit that search warrant was not obtained as required under the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He would submit that though the Investigating Officer has come out with a Panchnama as to why search warrant could not be obtained, there is no compliance of provisions contained in Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act inasmuch as no information was sent to the immediate superior authority with regard to the proceedings of receipt of information and reason for not obtaining search warrant. Therefore, it is argued, there is violation of mandatory provision and this renders the entire case of the prosecution highly doubtful.

The second contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that even though, according to the prosecution, the quantity of ganja was allegedly found in the vehicle, in all the cases of interception and seizure of ganja, it is mandatory to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

The third contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the present case, there is non-compliance of the Section 57 of the NDPS Act as the information with regard to proceedings have not been duly forwarded to the higher authority which again renders the entire prosecution case highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act has not been sent immediately but after about three days.

Learned counsel for the applicant would further argue that in the present case, the trial has not been concluded till date though the applicant has remained in jail and he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period without conclusion of trial.

The last submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that out of 9 witnesses, till date, only 5 witnesses have been examined which includes witnesses of seizure and weighment but those witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in the present case, the contents of the charge sheet would prima facie show that a Mukhbir Panchnama was prepared and effort was made to obtain search warrant but the office of the next superior officer was closed and, therefore, search warrant could not be obtained and a Panchnama to this effect was also prepared. However, on the next day, the information was actually submitted in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer. Further submission is that since in the present case, seizure is not from the personal search but from the vehicle therefore, the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. Next submission of learned State counsel is that the provisions of Section 57 of the NDPS Act are not mandatory but directory though in the present case, two days after the incident, the information has been sent to the higher authority. He would further submit that in the present case, the Investigating Officer has not been examined and only on the basis some of the witnesses have not fully supported the case of the prosecution, at this stage, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not involved in the alleged commission of offence. He would further submit that out of 9, 5 witnesses have already been examined and trial is likely to be concluded early. If the applicant is granted bail at this stage, he is likely to abscond also as the app