came to be recovered for which the accused persons were having no license or authority to possess. The seizure was affected; the accused were apprehended and after further investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. The petitioner are behind the bars since 29.09.2023. The trial has not been commenced yet. Admittedly, the police team proceeded to the place of spot after receiving information regarding presence of some illegal commodity at the place of Dharamchand, whereupon the search was made and the contraband poppy husk came to be recovered. It is admitted fact situation that before proceeding to effect search and seizure, no information was supplied to the superior officer which is the pre-requisite condition as per Section 42 of the NDPS Act. In case of the Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala [(2000) 8 SCC. 590] and in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, [(2011) 1 SCC 609] as well as in in the case of State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh [1994 SCC (3) 299] , Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that compliance of Section 42 is mandatory and non-complying the mandate vitiates the recovery. This Court does not want to give any final opinion in this regard, but taking into account the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars and prima facie a strong arguable case is there in favour of him regarding noncompliance of mandatory provisions, therefore, this Court feels that further detention of petitioner in this case would not be justifiable. The provision of bail is neither punitive nor
