The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of arguable points, the period of custody, and the requirement to meet the object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in granting regular bail in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. This is the first petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.87 dated 16.06.2021, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana.

2. The case of the prosecution is that ASI Narinder Kumar along with ASI Lakhvir Singh, senior constable Paramvir Singh and senior lady constable Mandeep Kaur were present at the main chowk of Mandi Maullanpur, when a special messenger came and informed the said persons that the petitioner, who was dealing in intoxicant tablets, would sell the same from village Dakha to village Issowal and in case the barricading was to be done, the said petitioner could be apprehended. It is further the case of the prosecution that as is apparent from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in spite of the fact that the said barricading was done, the petitioner managed to run away from the spot after throwing the polythene bag but he was recognized by the senior constable Paramvir Singh and on checking the said bag, 800 tablets of 100 MG SR Tablets RADOL-100 containing the salt-Tramadol Hydrochloride, were recovered from the said polythene bag. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was thereafter arrested on 09.07.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is argued that it is impossible to believe that the petitioner, who was on foot, managed to escape in spite of the fact that there were several police officials present at the spot. It is further submitted that the allegation to the effect that the petitioner is dealing in intoxicant tablets is also false inasmuch as, he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.07.2021 and the challan has already been presented and there are 10 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is also submitted that as per the FSL report, the total quantity of the narcotic drugs that has been detected is 268.8 grams and the commercial quantity of the same is stipulated at 250 grams.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-13662-2020 titled as 'Niranjan Kumar @ Kaka Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 06.07.2020, to contend that in such like cases, it could not be stated that the petitioner/accused person was in conscious possession of the alleged narcotic drug.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case although, the petitioner was not arrested at the spot, but he was identified by senior constable Paramvir Singh although, the facts with respect to the custody and the petitioner not being involved in any other case, however, have not been disputed by learned State counsel.

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

7. It is not in dispute that in the present case, there was secret information on the basis of which the barricading was done and there were several police officials present on the spot at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute that as per the prosecution version, the petitioner was on foot and yet, he was not arrested in spite of the presence of several police officials. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kumar @ Kaka's case (supra) had observed that where the recovery has been made from the ground, the accused petitioner is entitled for the concession of regular bail.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also highlighted the fact that in various cases where recovery of commercial quantity was involved, there, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have, on the basis of arguable points in the bail application as well as by consid