The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the unlikelihood of carrying contraband in a transparent bag, non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act, and the absence of recovery from one of the petitioners in granting regular bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - By this order, three petitions, bearing No.CRM-M-37417-2021, CRM-M-41893-2021 and CRM-M-44486-2021, filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) therein in FIR No.147 dated 27.06.2021 registered under Sections 22(a) and 29 (added later on) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1985") at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, Punjab, shall stand disposed of.

2. CRM-M-37417-2021 has been filed by Rajinder Kumar, CRM-M-41893-2021 has been filed by Shiva Singh and CRM-M-44486-2021 has been filed by Munish Kumar.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case of Munish Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-44486-2021) has been taken as lead case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have submitted that in the present case, as per the FIR, it had been stated that Rajinder Kumar and Shiva Singh had been apprehended with an Activa bearingRegistration No.PB-79-2940 on the basis of suspicion and on the footrest of the said Activa, one transparent polythene carry bag was lying (pardarshi momi lifafa) from which, a total of 2600 intoxicant tablets with mark Lezidol-Plus Paracetamol & Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets were recovered.

5. Learned counsel(s) for Rajinder Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-37417-2021) and Shiva Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-41893-2021) have stated that it has been repeatedly held by the Coordinate Benches of this Court that it is highly unlikely for a person who has to carry contraband, to carry the same in a transparent polythene bag (wrongly translated as transparent glaze carry bag in CRM-M-44486-2021 and correctly translated as transparent polythene in CRM-M-37417-2021) and on the basis of the said point alone, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have granted the concession of bail to the accused persons in such cases. Reference has been made to the various orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court i.e. order dated 02.08.2021 passed in CRM-M-4408-2021 titled Band Kaur (a) Bhanti Kaur Vs. State of Punjab. Binder Kaur (a) Goza Vs. State of Punjab reported as 2021(3) RCR (Criminal) 360. Jaskaran Singh (a) Jassu Vs. State of Punjab, reported as 2021(2) RCR (Criminal) 837. order dated 28.02.2020 passed in CRM-M-8026-2020 titled as Lakhwinder Sinsh (a) Lakha Vs. State of Punjab.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have submitted that in the present case, there was no strict compliance of Section 50 of the Act of1985 inasmuch as while giving the offer as is mandated under Section 50 of the Act of 1985, it has been stated that the accused had been given the option of getting his search done before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer of Punjab only. The said aspect is apparent from the FIR itself, which is at page 12 of the petition. It is further submitted that limiting the offer to getting searched before the Gazetted Officer of Punjab, is not in consonance with Section 50 of the Act of 1985.

7. Learned counsel(s) for the petitioner-Raj inder Kumar and Shiva Singh have submitted that the accused persons are in custody since 27.06.2021 and the challan has already been presented in the case and there are 30 witnesses, out of which, none have been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial of the case is likely to take time, moreso, in view of the present COVID-19 pandemic. It is further submitted that the said persons are not involved in any other case.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Munish Kumar has, in addition to the arguments raised by the counsel(s) for the petitioner-Rajinder Kumar and petitioner-Shiva Singh, further submitted that there is no recovery effected from the petitioner-Munish Kumar and the petitioner-Munish Kumar is not even named in the FIR. It is argued that he has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of Raj inder Kumar. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs.