- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This is second bail application. The First Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10255 of 2005 has been rejected by this Court on 4-10-2005 after considering the case on its merits.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case, it is said that 1 k. g. smack was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The sample of the recovered contraband was sent to the Public Analyst but according to the report of the Public Analyst, the recovered sample was found heroin, it was 'not found smack. Reliance 'has been placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant of this Court dated 13-1-2006 in the case of Sanjay Kumar Verma v. State of U. P. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12249 of 2003 [since reported in 2006 (1) JIC 558 (All)]. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. it appears that in this second bail application there is only one new ground that the 'recovered' 'contraband' was found heroin whereas according to the prosecution version sample of the smack was taken but from the perusal of the recovery memo it appears that the applicant and other co-accused have disclosed, that they were having smack and no other test was done by the arresting officer. It has been mentioned in the recovery memo that the recovery of contraband was appearing to be smack. Therefore, it was sent to the Public Analyst for confirmation where it was found that it was heroin. Only this ground alone is not proper to release the applicant on bail. The facts of this case are distinguishable with the case of Sanjay Kumar Verma v. State of U. P. as referred above by the learned Counsel for the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entailed for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application rejected. .;