stated that he is indulged in the business of poppy husk for last about one year and he purchased the contraband from Rakesh Kumar and Murli Dhakad who introduced him to co-accused Baldev Singh Bishnoi and Baldev Singh Bishnoi was driving the second vehicle. Co-accused Baldev Singh was also arrested and in his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act, he stated that he is indulged in the business of poppy husk and used the vehicle of petitioner Anil Suthar for which he used to give Rs.2500/- per trip. He also stated that when the patrolling party tried to stop the vehicle, he hit the vehicle and tried to run away but the vehicle stopped. In the instant case, there is material on record in the shape of statement of co-accused as also the statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating agency during the investigation of the case which shows the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. There is also call details of conversion of present petitioner with co-accused Baldev Singh so also the Bank record, which shows that the co-accused Baldev Singh used to deposit money in the account of the petitioner. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said at this stage that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not involved in the offence. Thus, the present case is not a fit case for extending bail to the accused petitioner at this stage. So far as the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the said case, the bail applications of the accused respondents were allowed by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the CDR details of some of the coaccused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the
