S.S. Saron, J. - Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the appellant/applicant is in custody since 7.3.2001 and in this manner he has undergone about one year and five months of imprisonment. It is further contended that the petitioner is entitled to bail on the strength of the judgment of this Court in Hem Raj v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 359 (P&H).

2. In response, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the recovery effected is commercial quantity.

3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. It is appropriate to note that the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act - for short) for having 2 kgs. of charas in his possession without any permit or licence. The same is commercial quantity.

5. This Court in the case of Hem Raj v. State of Punjab, (supra) wherein commercial quantity of charas was recovered, observed that there is apparent dichotomy between the commercial quantities defined for charas and other drugs like opium and he