S.C. Jain, J.
(1) This accused is facing trial in a case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for the alleged recovery of I kg and 300 gms. of charas.His earlier bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by a detailed order dated 3.11.1992, Mr. Suhag, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the public witness, Manoj Sharma has not supported the prosecution case during the trial and that the seal allegedly used is not that of the 1.0., but bears the initials 'S.K..'. According to the learned Counsel this accused is entitled to be released on bail. He cited a decision of this Court on the bail application given by Justice A.B. Saharyain Cr.M(.M)291/92 in support of his contention that the seal which was used on the Pulinda was not that of a member of the raiding party and on that ground the accused in that case was granted bail.
(2) Learned State Counsel Mr. O.P. Faizi has strongly opposed this bail application of the petitioner on the plea that all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been duly complied within this case and that the evidence before the Trial Court cannot be appreciated at the stage of granting bail prejudicing the case of the prosecution or the accused.According to him, this accused is not entitled to released on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
(3) I have given my considered thought to the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record. For grant of bail in a case under the NDPS Act, it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail.
(4) Without commenting on the merits of the case, on prima fadeground, I do not find it a fit case in which this accused can be released on bail in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in N.C.D. v. Kishan Lal : 1991CriLJ654 .Besides the public witness, Manoj Sharma, there are other police officials who were witness to the recovery. Other witnesses to the alleged recovery still remain to be examined. Moreover, the evidence which has come during the trial cannot be appreciated prejudicing the case of the prosecution or the accused. This plea that the public witness has not supported the prosecution version during the trial is not helpful to the accused in getting bail in this case under the NDPS Act.
(5) Regarding the seal of 'S.K.' it is for the 1.0. to explain as to how he had used the said seal. Sometimes it happens that the seal of the concerned 1.0. is with the witness in some other case and in that event he makes use of the seal of some other police officer. This fact remains to be explained by the 1.0.. who has put the seal at the time of the seizure. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner while rejecting the bail application.
(6) I find no ground for admitting this accused on bail in this case under the NDPS Act. The application is hereby dismissed. It has already been ordered for the expeditious disposal of the case.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information and compliance. Petition dismissed.