The court considered the petitioner's clean antecedents, the stage of the trial, and the commercial nature of the contraband in allowing the bail petition.

JUDGMENT :

Suvir Sehgal, J.

1. This is the 1st petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in:-

2. FIR, Annexure P-1, was registered when secret information was received that Harbhinder Singh, Dharminder Singh, Major Singh and Jaswant Singh (present petitioner), who had formed a gang were transporting poppy husk from another State in two different vehicles for sale in the State of Punjab. The vehicles were inercepted and recovery of 250 kgs of poppy husk was made.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although recovery of 150 kgs of poppy husk was made from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner, but the vehicle does not belong to him. He argues that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with at the time of search and seizure. Still further, it is his argument that the petitioner, who has clean antecedents, is in custody since 19.05.2021, deserves to be enlarged on bail as the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. He has placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) 6690-2022 titled as Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 25.01.2023 as well as order dated 22.03.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4173-2022 titled as Shariful Islam @ Sarif Versus The State of West Bengal.

4. Per contra, State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Harpal Singh, has opposed the petition. By inviting the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he urges that there is an embargo to the grant to bail to persons, who are involved in dealing in commercial quantity of contraband. State counsel is not in a position to deny the antecedents of the petitioner. He submits that 03 out of 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

5. I have heard counsel counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (Supra) has held as under:-

"3….. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed."

7. Noticing that the petitioner is languishing in custody for the last more than 25 months, the nascent stage of the trial and the unblemished antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is prima facie of the view that he is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Without adverting to the merits or de-merits of the arguments addressed, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.