The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the role of the accused and the circumstances of the case while deciding a bail application, and the requirement to protect the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.239 dated 15.11.2017, registered under Sections 15/25/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been in custody since 31.07.2019 and there are total 15 prosecution witnesses, out of which, nine are yet to be examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that secret information was received, in which, the petitioner along with five other persons had been named, but the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot nor any recovery has been effected from him. It is also submitted that even the alleged recovery has been effected from a truck, which was being driven by one Harjit Singh and as per the secret information, the petitioner was not in the said truck and was allegedly in a Scorpio car. It is argued that co-accused Harjit Singh had implicated the present petitioner in the case, but even after the arrest of the petitioner, no recovery has been effected from him. It is further submitted that other than the disclosure statement and the secret information, there is no incriminating evidence against the present petitioner and thus, has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case titled as 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported as 2021(4) SCC 1 and 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' and the judgment passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as 'Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana', to contend that merely on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of regular bail.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and he was arrested after a lapse of 11/2 years. It is further submitted that petitioner is involved in two other cases and the recovery in the present case is of 1180 Kgs of poppy husk, which is a commercial quantity and thus, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that the petitioner has been released on bail in one case and in another case regular bail application is pending and 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 while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases.

5. 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.'

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

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's case (Supra), had observed as under:-

'152. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.'

8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mewa Singh' cas