The court emphasized the importance of evidence, compliance with legal provisions, and the impact of delay in trial on bail decisions under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is the first petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.321 dated 03.08.2021, under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Industrial Sector-29, Panipat, District Panipat.

2. The FIR in the present case had been registered on the statement of ASI Subhash Chand, who had stated that while he, along with other police officials, was present at bus stand Siwah, Panipat, the secret informer met them and informed them that two persons, namely, Bulet Kumar and Ravi were carrying Ganja Patti in their vehicle bearing No.HR-56-B-9774 and had the intention of selling the said Ganja Patti and on the basis of the said secret information, the police party stopped the truck bearing HR-56-B-9774 and from the same, co-accused Bulet Kumar and Ravi were arrested and after calling the Duty Magistrate Shri Satya Parkash Singla, SDO, PWD (B&R), Panipat and after following the procedure, a total quantity 180 KGs of Ganja Patti was recovered. A perusal of the FIR would show that during the preliminary investigation, Ravi had stated that the above-said vehicle belonged to one Kuldeep and one Ram Mehar in equal shares and that he was doing the job of a driver with respect to the said vehicle and that about one month ago Ravi & Kuldeep had gone to Andhra Pradesh from Panipat in the said vehicle. It was further stated by Ravi that Kuldeep had many persons for supplying of Ganja Patti and Kuldeep had informed him that huge quantity is to be brought. On 28.07.2021, the vehicle in question had been loaded with 27 Blue Colour Drums filled with chemical and 160 chemical plastic bags and handed over the same to Ravi. On 28.07.2021, Kuldeep had gone to him, to Visakhapatnam and had taken away his vehicle being HR-56-B-9674 and handed over the vehicle to Ravi and at that time Bulet Kumar was also there in the vehicle and Kuldeep, while handing over the vehicle, told Ravi and Bulet Kumar to take the Ganja Patti to Panipat and then the same be sold to Binder (petitioner), Ram Mehar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even as per the the prosecution case, the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and no recovery has been effected from him. It is further submitted that it is not even the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing HR-56-B-9774. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not even alleged to be the seller and it has been stated that as per the prosecution version, some of the Ganja Patti was to be sold to the petitioner, but actually no such sale took place. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.08.2021 and the challan has already been filed and there are 13 cited prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined and the trial is likely to take time to conclude, moreso, in view of the present pandemic. It is also stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and he is involved in one case, which was under the Punjab Cow Prohibition Slaughter Act, 1955, in which also, only a fine of Rs.200 has been imposed upon him.

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that there is also the disclosure statement of the petitioner and in the said disclosure statement, he has submitted that it is co-accused Kuldeep who used to bring Ganga Patti in his truck and that the petitioner had even requested Kuldeep to get 54 Kgs ofGanja Patti for him. It is further submitted that since the truck was captured by the police, the said Ganja Patti could not be delivered to the petitioner. It is submitted that the said disclosure statement, as well as the statement of Ravi, would show that even the petitioner is involved in the present case.

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

6. It is not in dispute that the p