JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

CRM-1849-2022

1. Present application has been filed for placing on record additional documents as Annexures P-11 to P-15.

2. Application is allowed, as prayed for. Additional documents (Annexures P-11 to P-15) are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M-52482-2021

3. This is the first petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.120 dated 08.07.2021, under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from him and the recovery of 350 grams and 150 grams of Heroin was effected from co-accused Gurmeet Singh and Baljinder Singh, respectively. It is only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the said co-accused, that the present petitioner has been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is nothing in the challan to connect the present petitioner with the alleged recovery. It is also submitted that as per the challan, there are no call details linking the petitioner and co-accused from whom the recovery has been made. It is stated that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.10.2021 and the challan has already been filed and there are 13 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined and the trial is likely to take time to conclude, moreso, in view of the present pandemic and thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. It is further submitted that all the witnesses are police officials and thus, the question of influencing them does not arise.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in one other case of NDPS Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has submitted that the said FIR No.80 dated 30.07.2017, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, in which, the allegation was that the petitioner was in conscious possession of 20 grams of Heroin, which is far less than the stipulated commercial quantity of 250 grams and in the said case, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Tarna, vide judgment dated 29.10.2019 (P-10).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in CRM-M-12051-2020, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 titled as “Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab”; the judgment passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as “Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana” and 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 merely on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of regular bail.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mewa Singh’ case (supra) has held as under: -

“1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.133 dated 24.11.2019 under Section 21 NDPS Act Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar.

2. Reply way of affidavit of Mr. Piara Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Shahkot, District Jalandhar (Rural) on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed, which is taken on record.

3. The allegations in nut-shell are that Bachittar Singh was found in possession of 1.7 Kgs. ‘Heroin’. During the course of interrogation, he made a disclosure statement nominating the petitioner as an accused wherein he stated that the contraband in question had been supplied by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and was never arrested at the spot and