JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 94 of 2016, dated 04.10.2016, under Section 20 of ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 04.10.2016 police acting on secret information raided the premises of Balmiki Mandir and the petitioner was apprised about the secret information. During the search ''ganja'' was recovered from two drums, which on weighment was found to be 77 kgs. The police completed all the sealing and sampling formalities. The petitioner was arrested and the samples of recovered contraband were sent for forensic analysis. Forensic analysis revealed that the recovered material is ganja. After completion of investigation police filed challan in the Court and the trial is going on. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that keeping in view the seriousness of the offence the bail application may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to rivalry between the parties for mahantship. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that keeping in view the huge quantity of contraband, that is 77 kgs, which was found from exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner and also the fact that the trial is pending before the learned Trial Court, the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail may not be exercised and the application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage taking into considering the fact that the petitioner, as per the prosecution case, was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 77 kgs of contraband. The petitioner was arrested after completing all the codal formalities. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force that the petitioner was not stocking and selling the narcotics, as it has specifically come on record that the petitioner was dealing in stocking and selling of narcotics, however, it is a matter of evidence. This Court has also considered the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2018, but the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as even after considering the case of the petitioner on merits, this Court finds that there is no prima facie case to hold that the petitioner, in case released on bail, he will not flee from justice and will not tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, which have come on record, the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 8. In view of the above, the petitioner, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.