Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 586 dated 20.10.2013 under Sections 15 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, there was no cogent evidence to connect him with the crime. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated with mala fide intention of Sub Inspector Tarsem Singh on the basis of fabricated record as neither the land, from where the alleged recovery was made, belongs to the petitioner nor he was arrested at the spot. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was not found to be in conscious possession of the contraband and the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2013 and the incomplete challan was presented on 22.12.2013 and the charge against the petitioner was framed on 06.01.2014 without obtaining any Chemical Examiner's Report. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is not a previous convict as no other case of NDPS Act is pending against him.

3. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Bahadur Singh, has not disputed the factum of presentation of challan and framing of charge as the charge was framed on 06.01.2014, whereas, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was dated 08.01.2014. Copy of the charge sheet as well as report of Forensic Science Laboratory have also been brought to the notice of this Court.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the contents of FIR as well as order passed by the lower Court.

5. The FIR in the present case was registered on 20.10.2013 on the basis of ruqa forwarded by Sub Inspector Tarsem Singh as he was on patrolling duty while going on Badopal-Dhanger Salamkhera road accompanied by other police officials in Government vehicle bearing No. HR-62/5265. However, on reaching near the Rajwaha bridge, a young boy was seen holding a plastic bag, who ran away to the fields after seeing the police. The accused was identified as Ravinder @ Binder by the police officials as he was known to him. Efforts were made to overpower him but he succeeded in running away. Total 12 plastic bags were recovered while checking trenches and the same were supposedly be containing narcotic substance. Deputy Superintendent of Police was called on the spot and two samples each of 100 grams were taken out from all 12 bags. The remaining substance in all the 12 bags, on weighing, was found to be containing 19 kilograms 800 grams of poppy husk. The case property was taken into possession. The signatures of witnesses along with the signatures of Deputy Superintendent of Police were obtained. The accused-petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2013, whereas, the FIR was registered on 20.10.2013. The petitioner moved an application for grant of regular bail which was dismissed on 21.10.2014. The bail to the petitioner has been declined on the ground that he was involved in serious offence and recovery from him was of commercial quantity of narcotic substance.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was also directed to place on record the copy of challan, which is on record.

7. On perusal of final report, it is clear that the petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2013 and the challan was presented on 22.12.2013. The challan was presented without obtaining any Chemical Examiner's Report. Subsequently, the charge was also framed against the petitioner on 06.01.2014. It has also been mentioned in the challan that no investigation is remaining but at the time of filing challan, the Chemical Examiner's Report was not received by the Investigating Officer. The issue, which is necessary to be determined is, as to whether the trial Court can frame charge on the basis of incomplete challan as the