The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of considering the merits of the case and the period of custody in granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This order will dispose of two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail pending trial to the petitioners in FIR no.160 dated 18.09.2020 registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station Division no.1, District Pathankot.

2. The first petition, i.e. CRM-M-18642-2021 titled as 'Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru vs. State of Punjab' has been filed by Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and the second petition, i.e. CRM-M-17048-2022 titled as 'Rakesh Sharma vs. State of Punjab' has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Sharma.

3. Learned counsel for both the petitioners have jointly submitted that in the present case, the petitioners have been falsely implicated and both the petitioners are not involved in any other case and they have been in custody since 18.09.2020 and out of 26 prosecution witnesses, only 1 witness is partially examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the father of Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru, i.e. Santokh Singh is the owner of 13 marlas of land in front of New Judicial Court Complex, near Chhoti Nehar, Pathankot which has been given on rent to M/s Natraj Pharma, Sonalika. Reference has been made to the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Annexure P-2). It is further submitted that said Natraj Pharma had placed an order on 10.09.2020 of 6 boxes of Codetis cough Syrup and the same was to come through Gati Courier Services having its office at opposite New Judicial Court Complex and in order to prima-facie substantiate the same, bill dated 09.09.2020 (Annexure P-3) has been annexed. It is further submitted that there is one Jugal Kishore who is running the aforesaid M/s Natraj Pharma and on the evening of 17.09.2020, a team headed by Inspector Balwinder Singh of Police Station Sadar had conducted a raid at around 5:00 PM at Gati Courier Services having its office-cum-godown opposite New Judicial Court Complex, near Chhoti Nehar Pathankot and in the said raid, contraband in question had been recovered and the same has been videographed in the CCTV camera of Gati Courier Services and it is the said Gati Courier Services who had provided the aforesaid bill and since the courier was meant for M/s Natraj Pharma which is in the premises owned by father of Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru, thus, the police also came to the premises of father of Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru at 6:00 PM and under suspicion, arrested him, whereas the contraband belongs to M/s Natraj Pharma run by Jugal Kishore as a tenant. Reliance has been placed on the DVD (Annexure P-4) in said regard. It is also submitted that the said assertions are prima-facie proved from the fact that no other FIR has been lodged in Pathankot on 17/18.09.2020 pertaining to the alleged contraband recovered at Gati Courier Services. It is, thus, jointly submitted that in the present case, recovery was not effected from the place where the recovery had been shown to have been effected. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for petitioner Rakesh Sharma that petitioner Rakesh Sharma has a certificate of registration from the Punjab State Pharmacy Council which was issued on 24.02.1995 and is valid upto 31.12.2024 and thus, was valid on the date when the alleged recovery had been effected. On the basis of said assertion, it is stated that the petitioners deserve the concession of regular bail moreso, keeping in view the custody period of the petitioners.

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petitions for regular bail and has submitted that the pleas raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are defence pleas and perusal of the FIR would show that the recovery of commercial quantity of intoxicant/ drugs had been effected from the present petitioners on 18.09.2020. The fact that the petitioners are not involved in any other case and also the period of the custody has, however, not bee