bus at Bhawani Mandi, in the presence of number of independent witnesses, including the driver and conductor. However, the seizure witnesses in the present case are from Neemuch, which is at a distance of about 150 kilometers from the place of seizure. Such proceedings are in clear violation of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that search and seizure proceedings must be done in the presence of respectable persons residing in the same locality. It is further submitted that one of the seizure witnesses is a stock witness of the Bureau, which he himself admitted during cross-examination. Both seizure witnesses have also admitted that the contents of the seizure memo were not read to them and they signed the same simply because the officers of the Bureau were known to them. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have already suffered incarceration of about 16 months, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 14639/2023) , held that prolonged incarceration can be a valid ground for consideration of bail under the NDPS Act. Reliance has also been placed on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16671/2024) , wherein, despite the accused having three other cases registered under the NDPS Act, the facility of bail was granted considering the period of incarceration. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and
