The main legal point established in the judgment is that substantial custody, arguable points on merits, and the period of custody are crucial factors in granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is a first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.160 dated 18.09.2020, registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'), at Police Station Division No.1, District Pathankot.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, as per the FIR, recovery has been made from two persons i.e. Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru and Rakesh Sharma and no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and as per the version in the FIR, the petitioner had ran away from the spot and it is the said two persons, who had informed the police that it is the present petitioner who was the said person who fled from the spot. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and he has been in custody since 26.08.2021 and there are 26 prosecution witnesses, out of which, only one witness has been partially examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is also submitted that the other co-accused, namely, Vikrant Singh, Subash Chander @ Bittu and Davinder Singh, from whom also no recovery has been made, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 06.04.2022. It is also submitted that even co-accused Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru and Rakesh Sharma have already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 11.05.2022 and although, counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised the arguments against the present petitioner, but even as per the said co-accused i.e., Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru and Rakesh Sharma, the recovery has been made from one Gati Courier Services and not from the present petitioner and the said recovery, as per the arguments of the said two co-accused, was made on 17.09.2020 at 5.00 PM from Gatti Courier Services and not on 18.09.2020. Be that as it may, it is submitted that as per the prosecution version, no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for the grant of regular bail and has submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner was also present along with Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru and Rakesh Sharma, but he has managed to escape when the police arrived. Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate, as per which, the custody of the petitioner is 8 months and 22 days and there is no other case against the petitioner. However, the other factual aspects have not been disputed by learned State counsel.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the paper-book.

5. The petitioner is stated to have been in custody since 26.08.2021 and there are 26 prosecution witnesses, out of which, only one witness has been partially examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is not involved in any other case and no recovery has been effected from him and even as per the FIR, recovery was made from co-accused Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru and Rakesh Sharma and the petitioner allegedly managed to escape. The co-accused, namely, Vikrant Singh, Subash Chander @ Bittu and Davinder Singh, from whom also no recovery had been made, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 06.04.2022 and even Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru and Rakesh Sharma have been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 11.05.2022 although, the said Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru and Rakesh Sharma had implicated the present petitioner, but even as per their case, it is apparent that the alleged recovery was effected on 17.09.2020 at 5.00 PM from Gati Courier Services and not on 18.09.2020 from the premises as has been alleged in the present FIR. At any rate, no recovery was effected from the present petitioner.

6. With respect to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it would be relevant to note that