JUDGMENT 1. - Both these bail applications may be disposed of by a common order as they have been filed in Criminal Case FIR No. 4/94. 2. The applicants herein have prayed for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that two Trucks bearing Registration No. RJ-14-G-3885 and MP-14-C-0176 were checked by Shri Satyaveer Singh, Inspector Central Narcotic Bureau on 3.3.94 on Kota-Rawatbhata Highway On enquiry, the occupants of the trucks disclosed that Coriander-seeds /kfu;k were loaded in the trucks. In the meantime one of the occupants succeeded in running towards Jungle And other occupants of the trucks were interrogated. On search, 170 bags of Poppy Powder were seized. One Hari Shankar son of Laxminarain who was piolating a Maruti Van was also arrested. The occupants of the trunks disclosed that the goods were loaded from the godown of one Surajmal Agrawal. Surajmal Agrawal was also arrested and on interrogation from him, it revealed that the petitioner-Prakash Chand and he were engaged in the business of selling Poppy Powder and both of them were having half-half share in the profit. The petitioner-Prabhu Lal is the registered owner of Truck No. MP-14-C-0176 and it was released to him by the trial Court on his application. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel that petitioner-Prabhu Lal was having no knowledge that his truck was employed by the co-accused Surajmal Agrawal for transporting contraband article and that the truck was given because he happened to be his near relative. It was also contended that the petitioner has been appearing before Narcotic Bureau for interrogation and his arrest is no more required for investigation purposes. 5. For the petitioner Prakash Chand, it was contended by Mr. Rathore, learned counsel appearing on his behalf that on the basis of the statement of co-accused Surajmal Agrawal, no criminal liability can be fastened against him. Learned counsel contended that except the statement of co-accused Surajmal Agrawal, there is no evidence against the petitioner that he was having partnership with him in the business of selling Poppy Powder without licence. 6. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Gujar and Mr. Suresh Pareek have vehemently contended that in view of stringent provisions of Section 37 (1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, petitioners are not entitled to get bail even under Section 439, Cr. 6. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Gujar and Mr. Suresh Pareek have vehemently contended that in view of stringent provisions of Section 37 (1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, petitioners are not entitled to get bail even under Section 439, Cr. P.C. and there is hardly any ground to grant them anticipatory bail in such cases. Learned counsel further contended that petitioners are avoiding their arrest and there is sufficient material to establish their involvement in the crime. It was also contended that the bail application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. of co-accused Ram Kumar to whom the contraband articles were to be delivered, as well as the application of co-accused Bharat Singh were rejected by this Court on 15.12.94 and 15.7.94, respectively.In 1994 (3) W.L.C. ([Raj.) 622, while considering the scope of anticipatory bail in a case registered under the N.D.P.S. Act, it was observed by me, as under:- "The object and reason behind passing the amendments was to make stringent provisions of bail as it was thought that such powers should not be used to defeat the object of the Act and a technical plea should not be a ground for under -serving liberty under the Act. The non-obstante clause in Section 37 (1) of the /Act makes is clear that the accused of an offence under the Act is to be severally dealt with and that he should not be allowed to be released on bail unless the conditions contained in Section 37 are satisfied. Though the Act specifically does not prohibit the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C., but the legislative intent can be gathered from Section 37 of the Act which restricts the bail even after the arrest of the offender. The Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a special enactment and was enacted with a view to making stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operation relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The under lying object of the Act and the stringent provisions of bail introduced by Act No. 2 of 1989 make it clear that anticipatory bail should not be granted in such cases unless the Court is satisfied that the investigating agency was abusing the provisions of the Act with malafide object to arrest any person. The under lying object of the Act and the stringent provisions of bail introduced by Act No. 2 of 1989 make it clear that anticipatory bail should not be granted in such cases unless the Court is satisfied that the investigating agency was abusing the provisions of the Act with malafide object to arrest any person. In such cases, the law should be allowed to have its own course." Section 25 of the Act provides punishment to the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act. 7. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be appreciated at this stage. 8. After going through the statement of co-accused Surajmal Agrawal and other facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to any of the petitioners. 9. Consequently, both the applications under Section 438, Cr. P.C. are hereby dismissed.bail dismissed. *******