JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is the first petition under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no. 0068 dated 04.06.2022 registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') (Section 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act added later) at Police Station Badhni Kalan, District Moga.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and he is sought to be implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Mandeep Singh and Satnam Singh and a perusal of challan shows that no disclosure statement has been recorded and only DDR no.42 dated 04.06.2022 was recorded by the police. It is submitted that even after the arrest of the petitioner, no recovery was effected from the petitioner and there is no incriminating material against the petitioner connecting the petitioner with the crime. It is further submitted that a perusal of challan would show that there are no phone calls between the co-accused from whom the recovery has been effected and the present petitioner and that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.01.2023 as per the custody certificate and after filing of the supplementary challan against the petitioner on 20.09.2024, even the charges are to be framed and since there are 18 witnesses, the trial is likely to take time. It is stated that the other co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted regular bail vide orders passed by the Coordinate Bench, which are annexed as Annexures P-4 to P-6 with the present petition. It is further submitted that co-accused namely Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi @ Nanna who was also implicated on the basis of disclosure statement has also been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in CRM-M-54961-2024 and the case of the present petitioner is on better footing than the case of the co-accused namely Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi @ Nanna as the custody of the present petitioner is longer i.e., more than two years.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner was named in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused Mandeep Singh and Satnam Singh from whom the recovery has been effected and the DDR no.42 dated 04.06.2022 was recorded in the said regard. It is submitted that recovery from the co-accused was of commercial quantity and that the petitioner is involved in other cases including the case under the NDPS Act and thus, deserves no concession of regular bail. However, other facts have not been disputed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State ofU.P. and another', reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. '

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

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and is sought to be implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and even after the said disclosure statement and arrest of the present petitioner, no recovery has been effect