JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in this third petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.0058 dated 28.03.2022 under Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act (Sections 379, 411 and 489 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Special Task Force, STF Wing, Mohali.

2. Sher Singh (since granted bail vide order dated 29.01.2024 passed in CRM-M-3293-2024) and Joga Singh (petitioner) came to be apprehended with 500 grams of heroin alongwith weapons and cartridges.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the time of search and seizure. He contends that the petitioner is involved in one other case registered against him bearing FIR No.163/2019 dated 23.10.2019 under Section 22, 61,85 NDPS Act, Police Station Sarhali, Tarn Taran. In the present case, as the petitioner was in custody since 28.03.2022 and only 15 out of the 23 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. He, therefore, prays that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023'., the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when his co-accused/Sher Singh had been granted the concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while referring to the reply dated 09.05.2024 contends that the petitioner was an accused in one other case bearing FIR No.163/2019 dated 23.10.2019 under Section 22, 61,85 NDPS Act, Police Station Sarhali, Tarn Taran. Therefore, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. She, however, concedes that the petitioner was in custody since 28.03.2022 and only 15 out of the 23 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on 01.08.2022 held as under:-

"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

"1. There are three petitioners in thi