Bail can be granted based on the period of custody, arguable points on merits, and satisfaction of the rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act in similar cases.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.104 dated 03.08.2021, under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City-1, Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.08.2021 and there are as many as 20 prosecution witnesses and none of them have been examined and even the charges have not been framed and thus, the trial is likely to take time.

3. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the present case, as per the version given in the FIR, the present petitioner was the person who was the pillon rider and co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Vaseem Iqbal was the person who was riding the motorcycle. It is argued that it is case of the prosecution that when the petitioner and co-accused saw the police, they tried to turn back the motorcycle and the petitioner had thrown a polythene bag on the ground on account of which, strips of intoxicant tablets got scattered on the road and thereafter, the police apprehended the petitioner and the person who was driving the motorcycle. It is also submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Vaseem Iqbal has already been granted the concession of regular bail, vide order dated 20.07.2022 passed in CRM-M-45927-2021 and the case of the present petitioner is on a similar footing as that of said Vaseem Iqbal. It is contended that from the abovesaid fact, it is apparent that the alleged recovery had been effected from the ground and on the aspect as to whether in such a situation, it could be stated that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband or not, the petitioner has relied upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-16150- 2021 dated 19.07.2021 titled as 'Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab', and on judgment in CRM-M-33733-2020 dated 15.03.2021 titled as 'Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab ', alongwith connected matters and also relied upon a judgment reported as 2019(4) RCR (Criminal) 714 titled as 'Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab ',.

5. Learned State counsel has opposed the present application for regular bail and has submitted that it was in the presence of the police party that the petitioner had thrown the cream and red coloured bag on the ground, due to which the intoxicant tablets got scattered on the road and thus, it cannot be said that the present petitioner was not in conscious possession of the intoxicant tablets.

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

7. In Balwinder Singh's case (Supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:

'Briefly stated, case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that on 04.03.2019 police party headed by ASI Ravinder Singh on patrolling duty were coming to Tehang Octroi via Saiflabad. When they reached near Civil Hospital, Phillour they saw the petitioner coming on foot who on seeing the police party threw one heavy weight black coloured polythene bag and tried to run away. The police apprehended the petitioner and on search as per prescribed procedure recovered 55 intoxicant injections containing Buprenorhpine 2 ml each and 55 injections containing Avil 10 ml each from the polythene bag.

XXX---XXX---XXX

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner kept in his conscious possession commercial quantity of intoxicant injections. Rigors of Section 37(1)(b) are fully applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

However learned State Counsel has conceded that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act.

In CRM-M-13662-2020 titled as 'Niranjan Kumar @ Kaka Vs. Stat