JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The Prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.10 dated 17.01.2023 under Sections 22(a), 22(c) of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Sadar,Faridkot.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Arshdeep Singh was apprehended with 349 loose tablets subsequently found to contain the salt Etizolam. During the course of interrogation, he disclosed that he had purchased the said tablets from Harman Singh Dhillon (petitioner).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery of any contraband have been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Ann 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Ann Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 & Vikrant Singh Versus Stale of Punjab, CRM-M-396572020", wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused. As the petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2023, none of the 10 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, and in the one other case registered against him vide FIR No. 16 dated 20.02.2023 under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Dhakoli, he had been granted the concession of bail, he was entitled to the concession of bail in this case.

4. The Counsel for the State has filed a reply dated 01.05.2024 by way of an affidavit of Mr. Shamsher Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Faridkot, District Faridkot, which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, admits that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery was effected from him. He also concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2023, none of the 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and in the one other case registered him, he had been granted bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), held as under:-

"4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent wa