ORDER : 1. The instant 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Kalu Ram @ Karu Lal S/o Jagdish @ Jagdish Chandra Anajana, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.205/2021, Police Station Sadar, Nimbahera District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to one of the co-accused Ghanshyam (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.488/2021 decided on 13.02.2023) and the case of the present petitioner is on better footing than the co-accused Ghanshyam who has already enlarged on bail. He submits that the contraband (poppy straw) weighing 512.5 kg was recovered at the instance of Pukhraj and the petitioner is nowhere connected with this recovery. He further submits that on the basis of similarity of name, as disclosed by one of the co-accused, he was implicated but this evidence is not admissible as recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He further submits that the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act were not followed at the time of recovery and investigation. He further submits that the statement of P.W.1 Tulsi Ram as recorded before the trial Court indicates that no notice was ever given to the petitioner and no statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded with regard to the present petitioner. He further submits that present petitioner has been arrested on the basis of suspicion whereas, it is admitted by P.W.1 Tulsi Ram that Kalu Ram and Karu Lal are two different individuals. He further submits that in the cases where no recovery has been effected and no identification parade has been conducted then accused were released on bail by this Court. He further submits that statement of Pukhraj under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by Shri Harinder Singh Sodha, SHO. In which, he named accused Kalu Lal and Ghanshyam whereas the present petitioner is Karu Lal and his statement was recorded by the police. He further submits that the Election Voter ID Card, recovered from the present petitioner further indicates that the name of present petitioner is Karu Lal and not Kalu Lal. In which, he named accused Kalu Lal and Ghanshyam whereas the present petitioner is Karu Lal and his statement was recorded by the police. He further submits that the Election Voter ID Card, recovered from the present petitioner further indicates that the name of present petitioner is Karu Lal and not Kalu Lal. He further submits that the information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not admissible against the present petitioner unless recovery of contraband is effected from the conscious possession of the accused. In pursuant to the recovery memo prepared by the Investigating Officer he further submits that P.W.1 in his cross examination has admitted that Kalu Ram and Karu Lal are different individuals, therefore, where no link is established then the present petitioner who is in custody may be released on bail. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance upon the orders/judgments delivered passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Case Court in the case of Hathila Saddique Vs. State Of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2540/2022 decided on 20.12.2022. He further placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer, Revenue Intelligence reported in 2018 (3) CCSC 1404 (SC) 1404, Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2008 SC 1044 , 2020 (1) CCSC 257 (SC) and Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Union Of India reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1235 wherein law regarding second statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and under Section 27 of the Evidence Act have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Aforesaid contentions are opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that this is a case of commercial quantity wherein present petitioner who is also known as Kalu Ram was named in the FIR. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record and also respectfully perused the orders/judgments, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid referred matters (Supra). 5. As regards to the present bail application filed on behalf of petitioner is concerned, the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 5. As regards to the present bail application filed on behalf of petitioner is concerned, the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8029/2022 wherein a liberty as prayed by the petitioner to file bail application afresh after recording the statements of Investigating Officer and Seizure Officer was granted. A copy of charge sheet placed on record indicates that it was Naru Lal, Sub-Inspector, who was In-charge of the Police Station Sadar, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh and under whose active presence, seizure and recovery memo was prepared. The statement so stated further indicates that till now, only the statements of P.W.1 Tulsi Ram and P.W.2 Harendra Singh Sodha have been recorded. The liberty so granted indicates that applicant-petitioner can file fresh application only after recording the statements of Investigating Officer and Seizure Officer. Mr. Naru Lal was not examined so far. In any case, the matter is argued on merits thus, this Court is deciding the bail application on merits itself. 6. As regards to identification of Kalu Ram is concerned there is an admission of P.W.2 Harendra Singh Sodha that Karu Lal has submitted a representation to Dy.S.P. and I.G., Chittorgarh and he received only one representation. Herein, it is also admitted that in FIR, name of petitioner Karu Lal was not mentioned. When this Court look at the quantity of seized contraband, it is clear from the fact that a total 512.5 kg poppy straw was recovered from the conscious possession of the Pukhraj and in the statement recorded at the time of recovery Pukhraj stated that the said poppy straw was purchased from Kaluram Anjana S/o Jagdish Anjana, R/o Narsa Kheri and his mushi Ghanshyam at the cost of Rs.8.2 lacs and which was loaded from Hotel Ramdev, Pratapgarh Road. Pukhraj also admitted that he was working as a partner in Hotel Ramdev, Pratapgarh with Kalu Anjana. He also admitted in his statement that on earlier occasion also, he had indulge in similar type of dealing. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has enlarged co-accused Ghanshyam (Supra) on bail but as regards to present petitioner is concerned, name of the father and address particulars of the petitioner are same as stated by Pukhraj in his earlier statement recorded at the time of recovery. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has enlarged co-accused Ghanshyam (Supra) on bail but as regards to present petitioner is concerned, name of the father and address particulars of the petitioner are same as stated by Pukhraj in his earlier statement recorded at the time of recovery. Record itself indicates that Ghanshyam was munshi of present petitioner thus not having any control over the contraband except working under command of petitioner. 7. A notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was given to the present petitioner by P.W.1 Tulsi Ram, who arrested the present petitioner. The statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was also recorded. In these statements, the name of Karulal is also recorded as @ Kalu Ram. Similar confirmation has also been corroborated by co-accused Ghanshyam. The statement of Pukhraj for purchase of alleged contraband from present petitioner cannot be looked into on merits by this Court at the stage of deciding the bail application. The correctness and veracity of such statement is again subject matter of prosecution to be decided by the learned trial Court. This is a case of commercial quantity and in view of the material available on record unless conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India through NCB Vs. Mohd. Nawaz Khan reported in (2021) 10 SCC 100 , the bail application filed on behalf of petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court. 8. Thus, in view of the reasons stated hereinabove, the judgments and orders referred to above passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court, other High Courts are distinguishable on the facts of present case and the same are not applicable at this stage. Hence the 2nd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.