The court may grant bail based on factors such as custody period, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of recovery, despite the completion of the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - Petitioners are seeking regular bail in case of FIR No. 392 dated 24.12.2020, under Sections 15(c), 25, 29, 59, 18, 27-A of NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 7, 7-A, 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 192, 196, 201, 202, 203, 217, 409, 166-A of IPC, 1860 (Sections 18, 27-A of NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 7, 7-A, 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections, 192, 196, 201, 202, 203, 217, 409, 166-A IPC, 1860 added lateron), registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind.

2. The relevant facts are that there are two inter-related FIRs. Jagroop Singh was apprehended shifting 21 bags of Poppy Husk from truck bearing registration No.HR-45-C-9998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the truck') to a vehicle (chotta hathi) and FIR No. 388 dated 18.12.2020 to that effect was registered at Police Station Uchana.

3. Thereafter an information was received that staff of CIA Jind, had parked a truck loaded with onions with hidden contraband in the Police Station, without recording the information regarding contraband. Acting upon the information, the parked truck was checked and 20 bags of Poppy Husk were recovered and FIR No. 392 dated 24.12.2020 was registered.

4. Amandeep and Rakesh were the driver and cleaner respectively. From Amandeep, 600 grams of Opium was also recovered. Petitioner- Gurinder Singh father of Amandeep is the owner of the truck.

5. As per the case set up, the recovered Poppy Husk was purchased in Madhya Pardesh from petitioner-Mubarik Khan and Irfan. Jagroop, who was apprehended shifting the Poppy Husk bags, disclosed the name of petitioner-Subhash @ Golu, as one of the purchaser of the recovered contraband. The role attributed to petitioner-Sanjay is that he was Ex- Sarpanch of village and acted as a mediator between the accused and the police officials for release of the accused and the contraband.

6. Dr. Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate for Mubarik Khan submits that the petitioner is a whole-sale Onion trader at Ratlam District, Madhya Pradesh. The contention is that the petitioner is named in a disclosure statement. The onions loaded in truck were sold by the petitioner and he has nothing to do with the recovered contraband. Petitioner is not involved in any other case under NDPS Act except these two FIRs. He further submits that it was in relations to the trading of onions, the petitioner was in constant touch with Irfan.

7. Mr. Virender Soni, Advocate, appearing for petitioner-Subhash @ Golu submits that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement made by Jagroop, as one of the purchaser of the recovered contraband. There is no other evidence with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband. He further submits that he was engaged in vegetable trading and hence was in contact with Irfan and Amandeep.

8. Mr. K.P. Singh, Advocate appearing for petitioner-Gurinder Singh submits that the petitioner is owner of the truck. He was not apprehended from the spot, his son was the driver of the truck and he is not involved in any other case.

9. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate appearing for petitioenr-Sanjay submits that no role has been attributed to the petitioner with regard to recovery of the contraband. He was nominated on basis of disclosure statement that he acted as a mediator between the accused and ASI Parveen.

10. There is no evidence against the petitioner. It is argued that there is no proof against the petitioner with regard to demand or payment of illegal gratification. Further that petitioner is not involved in any other case.

11. It is a common argument in all cases that investigation is complete and challan stands presented.

12. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail. Submission is recovery from the truck was of commercial quantity. The petitioners in connivance with each other were indulging in transportin