JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. - This is the second application for bail in a case under s. 8 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It has been opposed on behalf of the State. Heard arguments. 2. The first application for bail was heard on merits and it was rejected on 4th Feb., 1987 by passing a detailed order. 3. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the applicant conceded that the prosecution evidence has been closed and only two prosecution witnesses PW 1 and PW 5 have been recalled for further cross-examination. It shows that the Sessions Trial is likely to be concluded within a few days and unless the applicant makes out a very strong case for bail, the second application for bail cannot be allowed. 4. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that during statement of prosecution witnesses it has been disclosed that search and recovery of the Truck was not made at Nishatganj crossing near Hanuman temple but at petrol pump which is at some distance from there and it is not consistent with the prosecution case. Before making any observation with regard to this point it may be mentioned that the prosecution case against the applicant is that on an information received the truck No. PAT 15&7 was stopped near Hanuman temple at Nishatganj crossing Faizabad Road, Lucknow and on search 110.700 Kilograms of Opium were recovered from the secret chamber of the Truck, Palvinder Singh applicant was driving the Truck. It has come in the statement of Habibur Rahman, Inspector Narcotics, PW 1, that Petrol Pump is at a distance of about 50-60 paces from the crossing. It shows that it is close to the crossing where the Truck was said to be intercepted by the raiding party. The absence of mention of petrol pump in the recovery memo does not appear of much significance for the purposes of the disposal of the application for bail. Apart from this the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out self-contradictory statements made by Nurcy, PW 2, a witness of the recovery. The third point pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the recovery memo it is not mentioned that driving licence of Palvinder Singh applicant was recovered. Apart from this the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out self-contradictory statements made by Nurcy, PW 2, a witness of the recovery. The third point pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the recovery memo it is not mentioned that driving licence of Palvinder Singh applicant was recovered. The last point pressed is that in the information recorded by the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Truck No. PAT 1387 has been mentioned in place of PAT 1587. These facts also cannot be much emphasised in connection with the application for bail specially in view of the other material pointed out by the learned counsel for the State. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that Palvinder Singh applicant was driving the vehicle. It has been mentioned in the order of the learned Sessions Judge passed in connection with bail application moved on behalf of applicant before him that a sealed packet was brought and produced before him by the prosecuting agency and the driving licence of Palvinder Singh was found therein. In the affidavit dated 20th Sept. 1986 filed by Palvinder Singh applicant himself, in connection with the first application for bail it was mentioned that he was driving this Truck for sometime in the past. In the recovery memo it is mentioned that some papers relating to Truck were found in the Truck and they were put in a sealed bundle. It is not disputed that recovery of the aforesaid opium was made from the secret chamber of the Truck. There is the statement of Palvinder Singh applicant recorded by the Narcotics Inspector wherein he made statement adverse to his interest and the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the applicant. The mistake in number of the truck does not appear of much importance. 6. Keeping in view all these facts I am of the opinion that no case for bail has been made out. The application for bail is rejected.