JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this bail application, applicant-Tej Pratap Singh alias Ashish Chauhan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 08 of 2025, under Sections 8 /20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 3. As per prosecution case, in brief, on 03.02.2025 informant Samit Chaudhary, who is Station House Officer got a first information report lodged at 15:28 hours against the applicant Tej Pratap Singh alias Ashish Chauhan and two others, namely, Ranjeet Singh and Sonu Chauhan, under Sections 8 /20 of the N.D.P.S. Act alleging inter alia that on 03.02.2025, when he along with S.I. Saurabh Rana, S.I. Jaswant Singh, Head Constable Sandeep Kumar, Head Constable Mohit Kumar and Constables Vinod Kumar and Anoop Kumar, was on patrolling in village Patapur, they saw one Eicher Truck DCM coming from Bhadramai. On indication by the police, the driver stopped the vehicle, two persons got down and started running away but the police personnel apprehended the driver as well as the other two persons. On questioning, they told their names as Ranjeet Singh, Sonu Chauhan and Tej Pratap Singh alias Ashish Chauhan. They disclosed that they were carrying Ganja in the truck. Thereafter, they were informed about their legal rights under Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and were given option for getting their search by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, on which they gave their consent for their search by the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, consent letter was prepared and Circle Officer Pahup Singh (Gazetted Officer) was informed and called, who reached at the spot. Thereafter, said Truck No. UP84 AT 3521 was searched by the police personnel in the presence of Circle Officer Pahup Singh. Five plastic bags were recovered from the cabin of truck, which were kept behind the driver seat. On opening said bags, four packets were found in each of four bags and six packets were found in fifth bag, to which they told that it was Ganja. On demanding authorization of keeping and transportation of recovered Ganja, they could not show the same. On weighing the recovered Ganja, it was found 112.360 Kg. All the 22 packets of Ganja were sealed after sampling at the spot. On demanding authorization of keeping and transportation of recovered Ganja, they could not show the same. On weighing the recovered Ganja, it was found 112.360 Kg. All the 22 packets of Ganja were sealed after sampling at the spot. An attempt was made to testify the public witnesses but they did not come forward to become witness. Videography and photography of said recovered Ganja were done and the same were also uploaded on e-Evidence App. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is being prosecuted on account of recovery of 112.360 Kg Ganja from Truck No. UP84 AT 3521, in fact, nothing has been recovered from the truck in question. There is no independent witness of the said recovery, whereas recovery has been shown from the public place. The provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been followed by the prosecution. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, who is languishing in jail since 03.02.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. No other point has been pressed. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer of bail of the applicant by contending that all the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have been complied with. There is no illegality in search and seizure of recovered Ganja. Considering the huge quantity of Ganja, bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that:- 6.1. Applicant is the owner of Truck No. UP84 AT 3521 and he was apprehended at the spot along with co-accused. 6.2. From the cabin of the truck in question, total 112.360 Kg Ganja have been recovered, which is much more than commercial quantity. 6.3. Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act is fully attracted. 6.4. Considering the quantity of recovered Ganja in this case, Section 20 (ii)(C) of the N.D.PS. Act is applicable, hence alleged offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years. 6.5. The Apex Court in the case of Dehal Singh vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh , 2011 (72) ACC 661, has again considered the issue of "conscious possession". Act is applicable, hence alleged offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years. 6.5. The Apex Court in the case of Dehal Singh vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh , 2011 (72) ACC 661, has again considered the issue of "conscious possession". In the said case, two accused persons were travelling in a car and they knew each other. From the windows/door of the said car, recovery of 27 Kg and 800 gm of Charas was made, which were found concealed between the shields and doors of the car. The Apex Court in the said case taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act has held that accused was not only in possession, but conscious possession of recovered contraband also. 6.6. Under the facts of the case, the conscious and constructive possession of the accused applicant over the recovered Ganja is apparent on record. In view of Section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act presumption shall also be drawn against the accused unless and until the contrary is proved. 6.7. So far as provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act are concerned, it is well settled that Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act can be invoked only in cases where narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances are recovered as a consequence of body search of the accused. In the present case, recovery of 112.360 Kg of Ganja has been made from the truck, hence in the present case, Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted. However, the accused persons were informed about their legal rights to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, on which they gave consent for taking search of truck by any Magistrate/Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, Circle Officer Pahup Singh, who was Gazetted Officer, was called and further procedure of search etc. was done in his presence. Hence, there is no violation of said provisions. So far as Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act is concerned, I do not find any material on record to indicate the violation of Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act. 6.8. No material has been brought on record by the applicant to show that there was any prior ill-will or enmity of the applicant with the police personnel concerned. 6.9. So far as Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act is concerned, I do not find any material on record to indicate the violation of Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act. 6.8. No material has been brought on record by the applicant to show that there was any prior ill-will or enmity of the applicant with the police personnel concerned. 6.9. Illicit trafficking is an organized crime and are done adopting different modus operandi by a group of persons with their different roles. 6.10. So far as plea of false implication is concerned, in my view, it is a stereotype defence raised in every case, where accused are found in possession of contraband. Experience shows that such statements are made in almost every case, therefore, such kind of plea of false implication without any basis is not liable to be accepted at this stage. 6.11. Nowadays, totally unconcerned people do not dare to become witness against criminals, as they have a lot of financial and political patronage as well as muscle power. Public witnesses against the criminals and drug traffickers are always under the threat, therefore, police personnel cannot be seen with the eye of suspicion particularly when there is a huge recovery of contraband and there is no prior ill-will of police personnel with the accused and they are discharging their official duties. In recovery memo, proper explanation about the want of independent public witnesses, has been given. 6.12. It is well settled that in the cases of huge recovery of contraband, the prosecution case shall not be vitiated due to want of the public witnesses. 6.13.Huge quantity of 112.360 Kg Ganja cannot be planted. On interrogation, the apprehended persons disclosed the modus operandi adopted by them in illicit trafficking of recovered Ganja. 6.14. As per the recovery memo, the videography and photography of said recovery of Ganja were done and the same were also uploaded on e-Evidence App. 6.15. In the case of State by the Inspector of Police Versus B. Ramu , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073, there was recovery of 232.5 kg of ganja on search of the house of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. 6.15. In the case of State by the Inspector of Police Versus B. Ramu , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073, there was recovery of 232.5 kg of ganja on search of the house of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The third accused was indicated as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of ganja so recovered, who had preferred anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the High Court, thereafter, State of Tamil Nadu preferred a Special Leave Petition (Cri.) against the order of the High Court before Hon'ble the Apex Court, which has been allowed vide order dated 12.02.2024 setting aside the order of the High Court making following observations in Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12:- "11. In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents. 12. For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the Court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act." 7. Considering the facts of the case as noted above, this Court finds that prima-facie Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act does not stands satisfied. 8. In view of the above, the instant bail application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed