JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This criminal misc. fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief: “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 release on bail.” 2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 143/2020 registered at Police Station Sadar Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’). 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 26.06.2020, while there was a blockage on the border of Ahirpura, by one Phulchand Tailor, Station House Officer (SHO), a vehicle (car) bearing Registration No. DL-8C-AAM-8762 was coming from Nimach; when the said vehicle was stopped, three persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar, Suman and Sonu, were found sitting therein; thereafter, the vehicle was searched, during course whereof, a contraband Doda Post (poppy straw) weighing 70 kgs 100 gram was recovered; whereafter the aforementioned FIR was registered and the present petitioner alongwith other co-accused were arrested. 4. The first bail application of the petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6193/2021, was dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 04.06.2021, with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording of the statements of the investigation officer and seizure officer. 4.1 The second bail application of the petitioner, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 11842/2021 was also dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 07.09.2021. 4.2 The third bail application of the petitioner, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No. 10182/2022 was also dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody for last more than 3 years and the trial of the case is likely to take a long time, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Smt. Suman and Balu Singh have already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 15.02.2022 & 05.02.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 1797/2022 & S.B. Criminal Misc. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Smt. Suman and Balu Singh have already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 15.02.2022 & 05.02.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 1797/2022 & S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 404/2021, respectively. It was also submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish the required bail bonds and surety bonds, in case he is granted bail. 5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the samples of the contraband were not sent for FSL within a duration of 72 hours for the necessary examination. Learned counsel also submitted that the concerned police authorities did not follow the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and therefore, violated the provisions of law. 5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that in the cross-examination, Phulchand Talior, the concerned SHO clearly stated that as regards article No. 11, there was no general seal graven and the seal-chit of the article was also not done properly by the concerned police authorities; thus, a procedural lapse was committed during the search and seizure in question by the concerned police authorities, which is against the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 5.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following orders passed by Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court in: (a) Ramchandra vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9454/2023, decided on 27.09.2023 (b) Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13504/2022, decided on 23.05.2023 (c) Dinesh @ Rinku vs. State, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3342/2020, decided on 07.09.2020 (d) Shera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16403/2022, decided on 17.07.2023 (e) Govind Kumar Dhakad vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6434/2021, decided on 16.08.2021 (f) Vinod vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6047/2021, decided on 08.06.2021 (g) Banwari vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 136/2024, decided on 09.10.2017 (h) Rameshwar Lal @ Ramesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 535/2015, decided on 03.03.2016 6. Bail Application No. 6434/2021, decided on 16.08.2021 (f) Vinod vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6047/2021, decided on 08.06.2021 (g) Banwari vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 136/2024, decided on 09.10.2017 (h) Rameshwar Lal @ Ramesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 535/2015, decided on 03.03.2016 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, while submitting that the contraband in question, as recovered in the present case, is quite more than the commercial quantity, and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly applicable in the present case. It was also submitted that there nothing on the record which could show any violation of the procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act, and that, the concerned police authorities have duly complied with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with orders cited at the Bar. 8. This Court observes that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act on count of the recovery of the contraband in question weighing 70 kgs 100 grams without any permit/license. This Court further observes that earlier three bail application seeking grant of bail to the present petitioner have already been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. 9. This Court also observes that the entire evidence including the statement of the witnesses recorded so far, are sufficient for denial of bail to the present petitioner at this stage. 10. This Court further observes that at this stage, it appears that the recovery of the contraband in question was made from the petitioner by the concerned police authorities, after following the due procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act. 11. This Court is conscious of the fact that in criminal cases especially in bail cases, the Courts have to examine each fact and circumstances before passing the order of denial or grant of bail to the accused concerned, and therefore, whether the accused deserves bail or not is to be examined on case to case basis. In the present case, the petitioner was found involved in a heinous offence and the contraband recovered in this case is much beyond the commercial quantity, and such a crime is against the public at large. 12. In the present case, the petitioner was found involved in a heinous offence and the contraband recovered in this case is much beyond the commercial quantity, and such a crime is against the public at large. 12. This Court also observes that learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court, as to how, in the present factual matrix, as set out hereinabove, the orders referred at the Bar on behalf the petitioner are of any assistance to the case of the present petitioner. 13. Thus, looking into the nature of the offence in question and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the contraband in question recovered from the petitioner is quite more than the commercial quantity, and also looking into the stage of the case against the present petitioner before the learned Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner at this stage. 14. Consequently, the present fourth bail application is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order does not affect the pending trial of the case against the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, on merits.