ORDER :

1. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.09/2022 registered at Police Station – Borai, District – Dhamtari (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Section 20 (B) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 {for short NDPS Act}.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01/04/2022 while on duty at check post barrier, while checking the vehicles, the applicants were found carrying 27 packets weighing about 90.800 kgs of contraband (ganja) in white colour Mahindra XUV vehicle bearing registration number UP 12 BF 4632. After primary checking at the check post, the applicants were taken into custody and thereby offence as stated above was registered against them.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that there are 3 accused persons arrested in the aforesaid offence. Two of them namely Lavi Kumar and Gaurav Rathi are before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail. He submits that though alleged seizure of contraband is in the commercial quantity, however, investigation is complete, charge sheet has already been filed, the applicants are in jail since 01/04/2022 and trial has not concluded yet. He submits that during the proceedings of seizure of contraband, there were gross violation of the mandatory standing order No.1 of 1989 particularly clause no.2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

4. He submits that there were 27 packets allegedly seized from the possession of the accused persons. The testing of these 27 packets have not been drawn by the prosecution and only odour testing of one packet was conducted leaving out the remaining 26 packets of the alleged contraband and thereafter, all these materials were mixed together and sample was drawn from the entire quantity. He further submits that according to the standing order no.1/89, from each packet so seized, sample in duplicate has to be drawn. Here in this case, the prosecution did not follow the mandatory standing order. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 benefit would go to the applicants and possibility of their conviction is much less. He further goes on to submit that there are catena of decisions in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts have held that if the standing order which is mandatory in nature and any violation thereof would lead to acquittal of the accused. Therefore, in sum and substance, provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come as a bar in grant of bail to the applicants as they are the first offender and from the charge sheet itself, it has come on record that there was gross violation of the standing order and there are reasonable ground for this Court to believe that the applicants are not guilty of commission of alleged offence. Since there is no offence registered against the present applicants with regard to NDPS Act prior to this, it would be safely be assumed that in the event of bail being granted to them, they will not indulge themselves in any offence of this nature in future. In order to buttress his submission, he relies upon various orders passed by Hon’ble High Courts which are mentioned below:-

(A) Order dated 19.04.2022 passed in MCRC No. 19405 of 2022 Navneet Jat Vs. State of Madhya Pradhesh {High Court of Madhya Pradesh}.

(B) Order dated 05.07.2022 passed in Criminal Petition No. 4428 of 2022 Baba Sow Chandekar & another Vs. State of Telangana {High Court of Telangana}.

(C) Order dated 11.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9660 of 2021 Om Prakash Verma Vs. State of U.P. {Allahabad High Court}.

(D) Order dated 16.05.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5643 of 2019 Laal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan {High Court of Rajasthan}.

(E) 2021 SCC Online Del 486 Ahmed Hassan Muhammed Vs. The Customs

(F) 2012 (130) DRJ 471 Basant Rai Vs. State

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that according to Section 35, 37 and Section 54 of the NDPS Act, pr