JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 for seeking his release upon furnishing bail bonds in connection with FIR No.139/2016, registered at Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur. In the FIR, petitioner is charged for offences punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner bearing No.5001/2017 was dismissed on 10th of July, 2017 as not pressed with liberty to file fresh as and when occasion arises. 3. As per prosecution case, S.H.O., Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur received an information that two persons are transporting huge quantity of poppy straw from Chittorgarh in white Mahindra pick-up vehicle No.PB11-BA-7096. The informer also conveyed that both these persons are involved in smuggling activities of contraband with their area of operation, i.e., Chittorgarh and Madhya Pradesh for transporting the same to State of Punjab. The information of Mukhbir prompted police authorities to take requisite action and they attempted to intercept the vehicle on Mega Highway of Parbatsar and eventually caught hold of the vehicle. The vehicle in question was driven by petitioner and he was accompanied by other accused person Kulwinder Singh. During search, it was revealed that accused Kulwinder Singh was carrying a pistol and the vehicle was stuffed with 20 jute and plastic bags containing poppy straw approximately weighing 364kg 700g. Upon completion of investigation, eventually, police submitted charge-sheet against both the petitioners for the aforesaid offences while keeping investigation pending against two others. 4. Espousing cause of the petitioner for grant of bail, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. M.L. Bishnoi, that after rejection of first bail application there is substantial change in the circumstances. Mr. Bishnoi contends that now after completion of investigation in the matter charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel has also argued that during search and seizure proceedings, Seizure Officer has flagrantly violated section 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel further submits that in the notice under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, the concerned S.H.O. has though given option to the accused-petitioner of Magistrate and Gazetted Officer but the first option as per the notice that of the S.H.O. concerned himself. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that breach of mandatory conditions envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has per se vitiated the search conducted by the S.H.O. concerned. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that breach of mandatory conditions envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has per se vitiated the search conducted by the S.H.O. concerned. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & Anr. [ (2014) 5 SCC 345 ] . It is also urged by learned counsel that while preparing sample of the recovered contraband, the total recovered poppy straw from each bag was mixed, and thereafter, two samples of 500g each were prepared, which has substantially diminished the prosecution case of recovery of contraband above the commercial quantity. In support of this argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision Netram vs. State of Rajasthan [ 2014 (2) WLN 394 (Raj)] . Lastly, learned counsel has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 5th of July, 2016 and the trial in the matter is likely to take considerable time in its conclusion, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application of petitioner and submitted that recovery of huge quantity of contraband in the matter, which is umpteen times higher than the commercial quantity, is sufficient to nix the bail application by invoking rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned Public Prosecutor has also contended that after rejection of first bail application there is no change much less substantial change in the circumstances. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that prosecution has collected call details of the petitioner and kept investigation pending against registered owner of the vehicle Harmesh Singh and one more accused Raman. He, therefore, submits that in that background, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the materials available on record. 7. While agreeing with the ratio decidendi of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am constrained to observe that looking to huge quantity of the contraband recovered in the matter it would not be appropriate for the Court to exercise discretion in favour of the accused-petitioner at this stage. There remains no quarrel that the contraband-poppy straw recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner was umpteen times higher than the commercial quantity. There remains no quarrel that the contraband-poppy straw recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner was umpteen times higher than the commercial quantity. Thus, in my opinion, rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted. Moreover, from the available material, it is also discernible that police has kept investigation pending against two coaccused, viz., Raman & Harmesh Singh, therefore, viewed from any angle, I feel disinclined to accede to the prayer of petitioner for grant of bail. 8. Consequently, the instant bail application fails and same is hereby dismissed.