quantity. According to Section 37 of the Act, for grant of bail, in a case, in which, the accused is allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity of the contraband, the Court, is required to record satisfaction, that there is a reasonable ground, that the accused, has not committed the offence, and that he shall not commit any such offence, in future, in case, released on bail. In the intant case, at this stage, it cannot be said that the accused has not allegedly committed the offence. Even no certificate, can be given, by this Court, that he will not commit any such offence, in future, in case, released on bail. The parameters laid down, for the grant of bail, in Section 37 of the Act, are, therefore, not fulfilled. No doubt, there is some lapse, on the part of the prosecution, in producing the evidence. However, the prosecution, can be directed, to conclude the evidence expeditiously. The delay, in sending the sample, in itself, is not sufficient to doubt the case of the prosecution. There is no provision, in the Act, or the Rules, framed thereunder, that the seal after use, should be given by the Investigating Officer or the DSP to a third person. Since the alleged recovery was effected from the accused-petitioner, from a public place, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, were not applicable. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, were applicable. There is, therefore, no changed circumstance, for the grant of bail, after the dismissal of the first petition for bail of the accused-petitioner, on merits, vide order dated 02.12.2008. The accused-petitioner is, thus, not entitled to the grant of bail. Criminal Misc. No. M-19605 of 2009, deserves to be dismissed.
