ORDER : 1. The applicant is under arrest in connection with crime registered pursuant to F.I.R. Number 97/2017 of Police Station Ratannagar, District Churu, in respect of offences punishable under Section 8/15, 25, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He has approached this Court by way of this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Before I proceed to examine the rival contentions in connection with the questions of bail it would be appropriate to briefly state the facts of the present case which are that on 16.12.2017, Sukhdeo and Jai Singh (petitioner) were found transporting 91.800 kgs. of contraband Poppy-Straw in a vehicle. As it was night time, they took advantage of the darkness and fled away from catch of Police party. They both were caught after a lot of efforts. 3. To begin at the beginning, Shri Jai Kishan Haniya, learned counsel representing applicant has fervently argued that statement of seizure officer and investigating officer has already been recorded during the trial against co-accused. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2022 passed against co-accused Sukh Deo and contended that case of the prosecution has already been found doubtful. 4. Concluding submissions, he asserted that applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, Shri Laxman Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State while objecting the different submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, would strongly submit that 91.800 Kgs. of contraband Poppy-Straw recovered from the applicant falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and the bar as contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. Investigation against petitioner is still under progress. He further submits that the seizure and sampling was in consonance with the procedure and the shortcomings pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are factual issues which cannot be considered at this stage and are to be decided after trial only. It is further argued that the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was substantially adhered to; that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner indulges in the illegal trade of narcotics; that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy as the petitioner is a drug peddler. He thus, craves rejection of the applicant’s bail application. 6. He thus, craves rejection of the applicant’s bail application. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 7. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and after going through the material and the evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that there is ample material on the record of the case so as to connect the applicant with the allegation of recovery of commercial quantity of 91.800 Kgs. of contraband Poppy-Straw. On perusal of record, it is prima facie revealed that in the present case, after investigation, it was found that petitioner Jai Singh was accompanying co-accused Sukhdeo at the time of seizure of contraband. However, the petitioner could not be arrested despite efforts and the investigating officer was compelled to file charge-sheet under Section 229 of the Cr.P.C. in his absence against the petitioner. At this stage also, the subsequent charge-sheet is yet to be filed against the petitioner and investigation is underway. 8. As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that as the quantity of the psychotropic drug recovered from the petitioner is well above the commercial quantity prescribed in the Schedule, the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act clearly operate against him and hence, he does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. 9. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant Jai Singh on bail. Thus, the application for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 10. Anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the present application only.