JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.227 dated 25.12.2021 registered under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Urban Estate, Patiala, District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and only recovery of 10 grams of smack has been effected from the co-accused Malkiat Singh which is far less than the commercial quantity as the stipulated commercial quantity of smack is 250 grams. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of said co-accused Malkiat Singh and the said implication is on account of party faction. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1, an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled “Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, and an order of another Coordinate Bench dated 16.07.2021 passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as “Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana” to contend that in such like cases, if a person has only been proceeded against on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, then he should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even the said co-accused Malkiat Singh, from whom the alleged recovery has been effected, has been released on bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in three other cases.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal to the abovesaid argument has submitted that as far as FIR No.62 dated 30.04.2019 registered under Sections 452, 427, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned, cancellation report has already been submitted by the police qua the petitioner and the same has been accepted by the trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2021, as far as FIR No.165 dated 08.11.2019 is concerned, the petitioner is already on bail and as far as FIR No.111 dated 10.07.2020 is concerned, in which recovery of 45 grams of opium, which is also less than the commercial quantity, has been effected, the petitioner had confessed his guilt and was thus, ordered to undergo imprisonment for a sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another”, reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record.

8. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The alleged recovery of 10 grams of smack is effected from the co-accused Malkiat Singh and the said Malkiat Singh has already been granted bail and 10 grams of smack is much lesser than the stipulated commercial quantity of smack which is 250 grams. The petitione