JUDGMENT Hon'ble RATHORE, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contrabands seized is 1.22 Kg. of smack. He further submits that after receipt of the laboratory report, the quantity of the contrabands becomes less than commercial quantity and therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Biswajit Chandra @ Kanu vs. State of West Bengal, 2003 RCC (SC) 461. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and has invited the attention of the Court to the Gazette Notification published by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 18.11.2009. He has submitted that in view of the Notification, the entire quantity of contrabands is to be considered and not the pure contents of it. He has also submitted that this Notification made in the year 2009 are made applicable to pending cases, by virtue of amendment in the year 2001. 4. Further, he has submitted that in addition to above, information has been received that the petitioner who is a resident of West Bengal is a habitual offender and he is doing the business of trading of contrabands from one state to another. 5. Having considered the submission of the counsels for the rival parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not consider it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.