1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The case of the prosecution is that three and half kilo-grams of Post-Chura was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 29-12-1992. Learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar rejected the application for bail filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13-1-1993. Hence, the petitioner has come to this Court. It is submitted that trial of the case may take some time and, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been falsly implicated.

3. Learned P.P. opposes the application for bail and he submits that-Post-Chura recovered from the petitioner falls within the definition of 'poppy straw' as defined in Section 2 (xviii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act. 1985, for which minimum punishment of 10 years has been prescribed by Section 15 of the aforesaid Act. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Poppy chura recovered from the petitioner would fall within the definition of "Lanced Poppy Heads" as defined in rule 2(rule) of the Rajasthan Narcotic Drugs a