JUDGMENT : N.K. Chandravanshi, J. Heard. 1. The accused/applicant has moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 09/2021 registered at Police Station Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth "NDPS Act") 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.01.2021, police of Police Station Gourela received secret information from the informant to the effect that some persons are transporting contraband article Ganja in Innova Vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07 M 8026 without authority of law, hence, on 9.1.2021 at about 5.30 AM, police made blockade between Jogisar & Khodri and stopped the aforesaid Innova vehicle, as a result thereof, driver and two other persons, who were sitting in the said vehicle, fled away from the spot and on being searched of said Innova Vehicle, 40 packets, each containing 5 kgs. contraband article Ganja, total 200 kgs Ganja were seized by the Police. Based on aforesaid facts, FIR under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act was lodged against driver of the aforesaid vehicle and two other persons. During course of investigation, on 9.1.2022, applicant and one Lakheshwar Sahu @ Lucky (driver of the innova vehicle) have been arrested. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, as no seizure of contraband article has been made from the exclusive possession of the applicant and seizure memo of SIM card has been falsely prepared by the police with an intention to rope the applicant. He would further submit that mandatory provisions as required under the NDPS Act has not been complied with while making seizure of the alleged Ganja; applicant is in detention since 09.01.2022 and the trial is likely to take more time for its final conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that during the course of interception, persons, who were sitting in the said Innova Vehicle, had run away from the spot but mobile location of applicant has been found at the place of occurrence. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that during the course of interception, persons, who were sitting in the said Innova Vehicle, had run away from the spot but mobile location of applicant has been found at the place of occurrence. He would further submit that as per sale letter of aforesaid Innova Vehicle executed between Radheshyam Sahu (registered owner of the Innova Vehicle) and the applicant dated 24.11.2020, applicant was owner of the said vehicle at the time of occurrence; some of the accused persons are yet to be arrested and investigation is going on, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on regular bail. 5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as material available on record. 6. As per case diary, the persons, who were sitting in the said Innova Vehicle, were fled away from the spot, hence, the police could not catch hold of them. Applicant is said to be owner of the alleged Innova Vehicle, in which, 200 kgs contraband article Ganja was being transported. It is also found from the perusal of the case diary that mobile location of applicant was found to be there at the time of incident. Hence, I do not feel inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the bail application is rejected. Certified copy, as per rules.