JUDGMENT : 1. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this bail application may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be released on bail.” 2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.100/2011 registered at Police Station Molasar, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.09.2011, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station, Molasar, on the basis of a secret information, seized a truck bearing registration No.HR 45 5428, wherein after the search, 36 Quintals 95 kgs 300 Grams poppy straw (Doda Post) was found; whereafter, the police registered the aforementioned FIR and one co-accused Vijaypal the truck driver was arrested, while the other person (the present petitioner) ran away. 4. The petitioner moved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur, which was rejected vide order dated 09.01.2023. Hence, the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no recovery has been made from the present petitioner, and that, there is no evidence available on record which could, in any way, connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime in question. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime is not proved by the prosecution, and that, he is ready to comply with all the conditions of bail, if granted to him by this Court. It was also submitted that co-accused i.e. Vijaypal’s sentence was suspended vide order dated 27.09.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal) No. 513/2018. 5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that one of the co-accused i.e. Sahdev, who was arrested on the basis of information given by co-accused Vijaypal, was discharged vide order dated 22.11.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1173/2019. 6. 5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that one of the co-accused i.e. Sahdev, who was arrested on the basis of information given by co-accused Vijaypal, was discharged vide order dated 22.11.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1173/2019. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground, amongst others, of a clear distinction between the case of the present petitioner and that of co-accused i.e. Sahdev and co-accused Vijaypal, who have been granted the indulgence of suspension of sentence and discharge, respectively, vide the aforementioned orders. It was also submitted that the petitioner is having previous criminal antecedents, pertaining to the like offence, to his discredit. It was further submitted that previously, the anticipatory bail application of the present petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court finds that the aforementioned FIR was registered in the year 2011 and the present petitioner remained absconding for a long period of time. This Court further finds that the alleged recovery is of 36 Quintals 95 kg 300 Grams poppy straw (doda post), which is quite more than the commercial quantity, as prescribed under the law, and thus, the same attracts the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. This Court also finds that the trial of the co-accused i.e. Vijaypal has already been completed, whereupon, he was convicted and sentenced for 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment; however, after the said co-accused undergone 7 years’ imprisonment, his sentence was suspended by this Hon’ble Court. 10. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the contraband recovered in this case is more than the commercial quantity, and the present petitioner remained absconding for more than 11 years and that there are previous criminal antecedents against the petitioner pertaining to the offence under the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant-accused, at this stage. 11. Consequently, the present bail application is dismissed.