JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.23/2020 registered at Police Station - Shujalpur City, District-Shajapur under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 307, 353, 333 of IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that along with Constable Harikishan, Rakesh, Rajesh and Mahesh Tiwari, Inspector B.D. Beera of Crime Branch-Vidisha was on patrol duty. They were later joined by Head Constable Pawan Jain of Cyber Cell. During patrol, they received a credible information that Naval Thakur, Yuvraj Thakur (petitioner) Dara Singh Thakur resident of Chowki Nala Vali, Police Station-Akodiya, District-Shajapur were going to sale cannabis (ganja) by 2 motorcycles. The patrolling party called the panch witnesses Saudan Singh and Abul @ Kalla and also informed the higher officials. Due to paucity of time, concerned police station could not be informed. After a short wait, they noticed 2 motorcycles occupied by three persons, two persons on one motorcycle and one on the other. A large plastic bag was kept between the 2 persons. Seeing the police, both motorcyclist turned their motorcycles back and ran away. The police chased them and successfully overtook them near village Patlawad Fata. All three were nabbed and the police also snatched the bag from their possession, but the persons grappled with the police. Suddenly, they took out knife and stabbed Head Constable Pawan on right shoulder, Hari Kishan on back of the head and right thigh, Saudan Singh on right side of neck and left hand and Abul on right cheek and escaped by getting rid off the police and taking advantage of the dark leaving the bag behind. During this scuffle, the police party snatched a knife from Dara Singh. All the injured were taken to Jash Hospital, Shujalpur where corresponding injuries were observed by the doctor. The bag was found filled with about 20 kg cannabis (ganja). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the investigation in this case is over and charge-sheet has been filed. No test identification parade was conducted during investigation. There is no evidence that the raiding police party or the panch witnesses were acquainted with the accused persons. The bag was found filled with about 20 kg cannabis (ganja). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the investigation in this case is over and charge-sheet has been filed. No test identification parade was conducted during investigation. There is no evidence that the raiding police party or the panch witnesses were acquainted with the accused persons. In the MLC requisition annexed with the charge-sheet, it is mentioned that the injured were assaulted by the unknown persons, therefore, the identity of the accused persons in this case is seriously doubtful. 4. Second contention of the learned counsel is that it is mentioned in the seizure memo that the cannabis was seized from the possession of co-accused Dara Singh, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for having contraband in his possession. 5. Third contention of the learned counsel is that there is variation in the quantity of the cannabis recovered. In FIR, it is mentioned that the accused persons left behind 20 kg. cannabis. In tol panchnama the weight is mentioned 19.6 kg. Weight of empty bag is mentioned as 150 grams. Thus the total weight comes to 19.750 kg. The quantity is mentioned 19.600 kg. cannabis. In seizure panchama of knife and cannabis, it is mentioned as 20 kg. In the proceedings under Section 52A of the Act conducted by the Naib Tehsildar dated 17/04/2020, the quantity is mentioned as 19.850 kg. cannabis in seizure panchnama provided on the spot. This makes the prosecution case doubtful. 6. Forth contention of the learned counsel is that no impression of seal is affixed on panchama of sealing the seized contraband. 7. Fifth contention is that the raiding party did not inform the concerned police station. There is a distance of about 200 kilometers between Vidisha and Shujalpur. During their long chase, none of the police stations situated on the way were informed, even the control room or headquarter was also not informed. 8. Lastly, the plea of alibi and complaints made by the family members of the petitioner and other co-accused persons to the higher officials immediately after the action of the raiding party have also pressed into service to support their prayer of bail. It is submitted that tower location of mobile numbers of the petitioner and another co-accused persons show that during the concerned period, they were in Vidisha and never moved out of their town. It is submitted that tower location of mobile numbers of the petitioner and another co-accused persons show that during the concerned period, they were in Vidisha and never moved out of their town. This retracts the case of the prosecution. 9. Further the age of the petitioner, possibility of delay in trial and absence of criminal record have also been taken as other grounds for pressing the bail. 10. In reply, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the documents show that there is no difference in the weight of the cannabis as sometime the weight is mentioned as approximate, somewhere it is mentioned along with the weight of bag and somewhere without bag, at one place it mentioned as gross weight and other place it is mentioned after reducing the weight of samples taken out or the weight of bad. Otherwise also the variation pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is insignificant as it is only about few grams. It may be due to use of different weighing machines. This fact needs appreciation after granting opportunity to the prosecution to explain the same. Therefore, this does not dent the case of the prosecution. 11. It is further pleaded that in their police statement, all the police personal as well as the panch witnesses have named the accused persons as the miscreant/assaulters, therefore, there was no need to conduct the test identification parade during the investigation. 12. The plea of alibi or the complaint made by the petitioner and other accused persons is their defence and has to be established by the petitioner after giving opportunity to rebut the same to the prosecution. The same cannot be relied upon at this stage. Without granting opportunity to the members of the raiding party to explain the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioner, their impact cannot be assessed. All the documents prepared on the spot and other evidence collected during investigation is prima facie sufficient to show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The accused persons dare to assault the raiding police party by sharp edged weapon i.e. knife which shows the seriousness of the offence and the effrontery of the petitioner. Such type of criminals cannot be dealt with soft hand, therefore, the petitioner be not granted bail. 13. The accused persons dare to assault the raiding police party by sharp edged weapon i.e. knife which shows the seriousness of the offence and the effrontery of the petitioner. Such type of criminals cannot be dealt with soft hand, therefore, the petitioner be not granted bail. 13. On due consideration of the contentions of the rival parties and the evidence collected during investigation, in my considered opinion, no case for granting bail is made out. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.