JUDGMENT 1. Apprehended pursuant to investigation into FIR No. 95/2016, registered at Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara, for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act, accused-petitioner has made this third attempt seeking bail. 2. At present, trial for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner is in vogue before Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara. First bail application on behalf of petitioner was rejected on 21st of August, 2017. Thereafter, petitioner made endeavour for seeking interim bail on compassionate ground and the Court while considering his plea allowed him to perform last rites of his father. Yet again, the petitioner approached this Court for seeking bail and second bail application was turned down on 27th of April 2018 with the observation that learned trial Court is expected to expedite trial. 3. Arguing on the third bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel that despite directions of this Court, since 27th of April 2018 there is no material progress in the trial and so far only one additional prosecution witness has been examined. It is submitted by learned counsel that the prosecution has cited twenty-two witnesses, out of which only eleven witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel has also urged that petitioner is in custody since 1st of April 2016 and conclusion of trial is not offing in near future. Buttressing his argument on merit, it is submitted by learned counsel that there is no recovery of the contraband from conscious possession of the petitioner and in fact the contraband (poppy straw) weighing 165 Kgs. was recovered from an abandoned vehicle, which is not owned by him. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no other criminal antecedent of the petitioner except involvement in present case. Learned counsel has argued that the prosecution in order to prove nexus of the petitioner with the alleged offence has shown recovery of mobile phone from the abandoned vehicle but the sim card of said mobile phone too was not in his name. Learned counsel has therefore argued that the entire case is falsely foisted and he is sought to be implicated without any tangible evidence in the matter. With these arguments, learned counsel has submitted that in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to tone down rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 4. With these arguments, learned counsel has submitted that in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to tone down rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that while it is true that contraband was not recovered from the possession of petitioner but the recovery of contraband is umpteen times higher than the commercial quantity, therefore, rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and taken into consideration the entire facts, more particularly, the factum of non-recovery of contraband from conscious possession of the petitioner. That apart, the prolonged custody of the petitioner, which is nearing three years and the fact that trial is proceeding at snails pace despite direction of this Court, I feel persuaded to grant some reprive to the petitioner by tonning down provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 6. Accordingly, this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Jamna Lal S/o Jagga Ji, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 95/2016 of Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.