S. C. Jain ( 1 ) THIS accused is facing trial in a case under Section20 of the NDPS Act for the alleged recovery of I kg and 300 gms. of charas. His earlier bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judgeby a detailed order dated 3. 11. 1992, Mr. Suhag, learned Counsel for thepetitioner has argued that the public witness, Manoj Sharma has notsupported the prosecution case during the trial and that the seal allegedlyused is not that of the 1. 0. , but bears the initials "s. K. . ". According tothe learned Counsel this accused is entitled to be released on bail. He citeda decision of this Court on the bail application given by Justice A. B. Saharyain Cr. M (. M)291/92 in support of his contention that the seal which wasused on the Pulinda was not that of a member of the raiding party and onthat ground the accused in that case was granted bail. ( 2 ) LEARNED State Counsel Mr. O. P. Faizi has strongly opposed thisbail application of the petitioner on the plea that all the mandatoryprovisions of the NDPS Act have been duly complied within this case andthat the evidence before the Trial Court cannot be appreciated at the stageof granting bail prejudicing the case of the prosecution or the accused. According to him, this accused is not entitled to released on bail undersection 37 of the NDPS Act. ( 3 ) I have given my considered thought to the submissions made bythe Counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record. Forgrant of bail in a case under the NDPS Act, it has to be proved to thesatisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds that the accusedis not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any suchoffence while on bail. ( 4 ) WITHOUT commenting on the merits of the case, on prima fadeground, I do not find it a fit case in which this accused can be released onbail in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and thedecision of the Supreme Court in N. C. D. v. Kishan Lal ( AIR 1991 SC 558 ). Besides the public witness, Manoj Sharma, there are other police officialswho were witness to the recovery. Other witnesses to the alleged recoverystill remain to be examined. Besides the public witness, Manoj Sharma, there are other police officialswho were witness to the recovery. Other witnesses to the alleged recoverystill remain to be examined. Moreover, the evidence which has come duringthe trial cannot be appreciated prejudicing the case of the prosecution orthe accused. This plea that the public witness has not supported theprosecution version during the trial is not helpful to the accused in gettingbail in this case under the NDPS Act. ( 5 ) REGARDING the seal of "s. K. " it is for the 1. 0. to explain as tohow he had used the said seal. Sometimes it happens that the seal of theconcerned 1. 0. is with the witness in some other case and in that event hemakes use of the seal of some other police officer. This fact remains to beexplained by the 1. 0. . who has put the seal at the time of the seizure. Thetrial Court has rightly appreciated the arguments advanced by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner while rejecting the bail application. ( 6 ) I find no ground for admitting this accused on bail in this caseunder the NDPS Act. The application is hereby dismissed. It has alreadybeen ordered for the expeditious disposal of the case. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for informationand compliance. Petition dismissed.