JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner is seeking bail in FIR No. 107/2020 for offences under Section 8/21/22/25/27 A/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") registered with Police Station, Manjakote District Rajouri.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.2020, a Police Patrolling Party intercepted motorcycle bearing Registration No. JK11A/8732, that was being driven by the petitioner/accused and the co-accused (Mohd. Sadiq) was travelling on the said motorcycle as pillion rider. Upon spotting the police party, the accused tried to run away but both of them were nabbed by the police. The accused were subjected to personal search by the police party and co-accused (Mohd. Sadiq), who was travelling as pillion rider, was found carrying a bag and upon its search, the same was found to contain approximately 4 grams of heroin like substance and cash of Rs. 5.00 lakh. Accordingly, both, co-accused (Mohd. Sadiq) as well as accused-petitioner, were taken into custody and after registration of the FIR, investigation was set into motion.

3. It appears that both the accused had approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri for grant of bail but the said application came to be dismissed by the Court below vide its order dated 16.07.2020.

4. The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused falls in the category of small quantity, as such, rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act is not applicable to the case of the petitioner; that the petitioner is unnecessarily suffering incarceration without having committed any offence and that the petitioner shall abide by all such terms and conditions, as may be imposed by this Court while enlarging him on bail.

5. The respondent has resisted the bail application by filing reply thereto. In its reply, the respondent has reiterated the facts leading to the arrest of the petitioner. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is involved in commission of offence under Section 27A of NDPS Act, as such, rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted to the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel has further contended that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the bail application of the co-accused (Mohd. Sadiq).

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the Case Diary.

7. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only small quantity of contraband is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused and, as such, the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that neither the contraband nor the cash has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, and as per the prosecution case, the same has been recovered from the bag that was being carried by co-accused (Mohd. Sadiq). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be roped in the subject FIR. He has further argued that there is no material with the Investigating Agency to show that the petitioner has conspired with the co-accused.

8. It is true that the quantity of contraband that has been recovered falls in the category of small quantity and it is also a fact that according to the prosecution case, the contraband as well as the currency of Rs. 5.00 lakh were recovered by the police from the bag that was being carried by the co-accused, but as per the prosecution case, the petitioner-accused was carrying on illicit trade of narcotics in conspiracy with co-accused and both the accused were indulging in financing of illicit trade of narcotics. For this reason, both the accused have been booked for offences under Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act as well.

9. Now the qu