The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which creates a bar upon the Court to grant bail and emphasizes the need for the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

JUDGMENT :

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.

1. Through the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner prays for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.96 dated 8.9.2019, under Sections 22 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station, Odhan, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been wrongly roped up in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is innocent and the present case has been planted upon the petitioner. He submits that, in fact, the petitioner was picked up from his house and not from the place which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has been mentioned in the investigation reports. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 8.9.2019 and now the challan has been presented. He submits that the procedure contained under the NDPS Act has not been complied with in the present case as such, the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel by referring to the short reply filed by way of affidavit of Mr.Arun Singh, SSP, Sirsa, states that another case bearing FIR No.283 dated 26.9.2019, under Section 22 (C) of the NDPS Act, has been registered at Police Station, Sadar, Dabwali, in which 300 intoxicated tablets were recovered from one Raj Kumar son of Madan Lal, who has disclosed that these tablets were purchased by him from present petitioner Nazam Singh prior to his arrest in the present case. He further submits that aforesaid FIR is still pending against the petitioner. It has been further stated in the affidavit that one DVD has also been produced by Seema Kaur wife of the petitioner on 5.12.2019 which has been carefully perused by the deponent. The duration of the video clip contained therein is about 18 seconds in which petitioner/accused Nazam Singh has been shown changing the clothes. In this regard, it has been submitted that the recovery officer has told that when the accused was apprehended in the car in front of his house he was wearing dirty clothes and on the request of the petitioner/accused and his wife, he was allowed to change the clothes by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalanwali in whose presence the recovery was effected. For the purpose of changing the clothes, the petitioner was allowed to enter into his house. At that time, HC Rajender Singh and HC Ramesh Kumar had also gone with him. The video clip shows that accused Nazam Singh was changing clothes in the presence of these two officials and his wife Seema Kaur.

4. Learned State counsel, on the basis of affidavit filed by the SSP, Sirsa, submits that assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was picked up from his house stands totally demolished because he had gone to his house under the custody of aforesaid police officials and he had gone there only for the purpose of changing clothes and therefore, petitioner cannot say that he was picked up from his house. He submits that it is a case where huge recovery has been made from the car of the petitioner and the procedure contained under the NDPS Act, has been complied with by the police and the petitioner was searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner is also involved in another case under the NDPS Act, there is every likelihood that he may repeat the offence and influence the witnesses in case he is released on bail. Apart from above, learned State counsel has also stated that though the challan has been presented, however, the charges are yet to be framed and the prosecution evidence is yet to start. He submits that it is not a case where petitioner should be extended the concession of regular bail as such, the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and have also gone through th