JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This criminal misc. second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Petition may kindly be allowed and the Petitioner may kindly be ordered to be released on Bail mentioned Case in F.I.R. No. 523/2021, Police Station-Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan).” 2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 583/2021 registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara 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 13.10.2020, the concerned police authority received an information that a vehicle (pick up) bearing registration No. RJ-06-GA-8229 was standing at Transport Nagar; upon receipt of the information the petitioner was found sitting in the said vehicle; whereafter, the vehicle was searched, and during course whereof, a contraband Doda Post (poppy straw) weighing 164.94 kgs was recovered. Thereafter, the aforementioned FIR was registered and the present petitioner was arrested. Subsequently, the concerned police authority filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 4. The first bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8046/2022) of the petitioner was dismissed, as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2023, with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording of the statement of seizure officer/investigating officer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the statement of the Seizure Officer (PW-2) it was clearly stated that the petitioner was arrested from a place located at a distance of 40-50 metres from the spot in question; the vehicle in question was a stolen vehicle. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record, which could show that the vehicle in question was stolen by the present petitioner. 5.1. Learned counsel also submitted that the concerned police authority did not produce any independent witness in support of the search and seizure in question. It was further submitted that the contraband and the sample were tampered, because as per the note, the control samples did not have any impression of the re-seal of the Malkhana. 5.2. 5.1. Learned counsel also submitted that the concerned police authority did not produce any independent witness in support of the search and seizure in question. It was further submitted that the contraband and the sample were tampered, because as per the note, the control samples did not have any impression of the re-seal of the Malkhana. 5.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the sample of the contraband is necessary to be sent within 72 hours of the recovery, as per the standing order, but the concerned police authority clearly violated such order. 5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the samples of the contraband in question were not collected in the presence of a Magistrate, and also, the Seizure Officer did not write any application to the Magistrate, as per the provisions of the NDPS Act. Thus, as per learned counsel, a procedural lapse was committed during the search and seizure in question by the concerned police authority, 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) Bhika Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7194/2023, decided on 21.09.2023 (b) Mohan Lal @ Mahendrapal vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11940/2023, decided on 22.09.2023 (c) Ramchandra vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9454/2023, decided on 27.09.2023 5.5. He further relied upon the following judgments: (a) Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2012, decided on 28.01.2016 (b) Santosh Pandurang Parte vs. Amar Bahadur Maurya and Another, Bail Application No. 4125 of 2021, decided on 19.07.2023 (c) Kashif vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, Bail Application No. 253/2023, decided on 18.05.2023 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. 6.1. 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. 6.1. It was further submitted that in the statement of the seizure officer (PW-2), there is note of the learned Trial Court wherein it was stated that all samples of the contraband were properly sealed, and that the vehicle in question is a stolen vehicle and the concerned police authority also filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the said offence. 6.2. It was further submitted that there is nothing on the record which could show any violation of the procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act, and that, the concerned police authority has 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/judgments cited at the Bar. 8. This Court observes that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and the contraband Doda Post (poppy straw) weighing 164.94 kgs. was recovered in the present case. Thereafter, the concerned police authority found that the vehicle in question was a stolen vehicle, and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 8/15 NDPS Act and Sections 468 and 471 IPC. 9. This Court further observes that in the statement of the seizure officer (PW-2), there is note of the learned Trial Court wherein it was stated that all the samples of the contraband in question were properly sealed and it is clear that all the samples are seal-able as per the note. 10. This Court also observes that the contraband in question was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and there is no material in support of the petitioner’s case, so as to entitle him for grant of bail. This Court further observes that after dismissal of the first bail application of the petitioner, the statements of the Investigation Officer and Seizure Officer, so recorded, do not indicate anything, which could persuade this Court to grant bail to the present petitioner. 11. This Court further observes that after dismissal of the first bail application of the petitioner, the statements of the Investigation Officer and Seizure Officer, so recorded, do not indicate anything, which could persuade this Court to grant bail to the present petitioner. 11. This Court further observes that at this stage, it appears that the recovery of the contraband in question was made from the present petitioner by the concerned police authority, after following the due procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act. 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/judgments cited at the Bar on behalf the petitioner are of any assistance to his case. 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 much beyond 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 second bail application is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order shall not affect the pending trial of the case against the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, on merits.