( 1 ) ONE kilogram of opium is stated to have been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has sought bail alleging that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is not possible to hold that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case in absence of any satisfactory material brought on record. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that no evidence has been collected by the prosecution to show that the contents of the goods recovered from the petitioner are opium as defined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ndps Act ). I have seen the copy of the C. F. S. L. report placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner which shows that the sample of the contents seized from the petitioner was examined and the expert opined that the sample gave positive test for opium and the percentage of morphine found in the sample is 2. 4% approximately. Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1984 Punjab Law Reporter 420 (1), a Division Bench Judgment, Amta Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987 (1) C. L. R. 533 (2), Boota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri. L. J. 336