Virender Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Relevant record also perused.

2. Debatable in this case is as to whether the recovery of 36 kgs of poppy husk from the petitioner pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him on 3.8.2004 would be added to the earlier recovery of 38 kgs of poppy husk allegedly shown to have been recovered from the petitioner on 17.7.2004. Mr. Sidhu, while strengthening his arguments states that if the aforesaid two recoveries are segregated in this case, then in that eventuality each recovery would fall under the head non-commercial quantity and the petitioner, thus, would be entitled to the concession of bail as provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, would not stand in his way. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sidhu prays for bail.

3. Learned State counsel, however, opposed the bail application vehemently and states that both the recoveries are to be counted in the present case itself, which comes to 74 kgs of poppy husk and the same being commercial quantity, does not give the right of bail to the petitioner on account of the embargo contained in Section 37 of the Ac