ORDER : This Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Cr.P.C.’) seeking bail in Crime No.30/201213 of Excise Police Station, Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(i), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), which is said to be pending in the Court of learned Prl.District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, in Spl.C. (NDPS) No.13/2016. 2. The allegation levelled against the accused/petitioner is that he was caught red-handed with 6 kgs. of ganja on 24.02.2013 in the afternoon in a bus stand at Jambagi village of Aurad taluk. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner had the benefit of bail earlier, however, noticing that he remained absent for appearing before the Court, the trial Court had taken him to judicial custody by executing non-bailable warrant. However, in the said process, it ignored the fact that he was in judicial custody in another matter in different place. As such, the act of the trial Court in not noticing the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody in another matter has lead it to execute the non-bailable warrant. 4. For the reasons best known to it, the prosecution has not filed statement of objections to the petition. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader in his argument submitted that the accused/petitioner has violated the terms of the bail and that there are sufficient material to show that he has been involved in other similar cases, as such, securing the accused would be of difficult task. Hence, the trial Court has rightly denied his enlargement on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused was earlier on bail. However, the contention of the prosecution is that the accused has jumped the conditions of bail which necessitated the trial Court to take him to judicial custody. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner was in judicial custody in another case in a different place, however, no material has been placed before this Court to show as to during which period and how long the accused was in judicial custody in other matter. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner was in judicial custody in another case in a different place, however, no material has been placed before this Court to show as to during which period and how long the accused was in judicial custody in other matter. Without any of these details, it cannot be presumed that the immediately after the accused enlarged on bail in those petitions, he was taken to the judicial custody in another case at a different place. As such, the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the accused has remained absent from appearing before the court and did not cooperate in speedy disposal of the case pending before the Court, cannot be ignored. A perusal of the material placed before this Court at this stage also would go to show that the trial has already been fixed and since the accused is said to have been involved in similar cases in other places also, securing him for the trial also would become a difficult job. Hence, I am of the view that there are no grounds for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.