JUDGMENT :

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.

The present is a third petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.13 dated 09.02.2021, under Sections 22(c) & 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the present petition is a third successive bail petition but now the custody of the petitioner is 3 years and 2 months and it is a case where the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that as per the allegation, the petitioner was found in possession of 10,000 tablets of Tramadol which although falls in the category of commercial quantity but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in the present case.

3. While substantiating his arguments, learned counsel submitted that it is a case where the charges were framed by the learned trial Court on 07.10.2021 and more than 2 years and 7 months have elapsed but no material witness has been examined till date and only 4 witnesses have been examined which includes the persons, who had deposited the samples and the official, who prepared the challan but no person, who had recovered the contraband or was a part of the police party has been examined till date. He submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and in fact earlier he was involved in one more case i.e. FIR No.122, dated 29.12.2020, under Sections 22-C & 25 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station SGN Thermal Plant, District Bathinda, but he has since been acquitted in that case. He further submitted that delay in the trial is on the part of the prosecution in view of the fact that as many as 15 times, the learned trial Court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against the prosecution witnesses, who are none other but the police officials, who themselves have set the criminal law into motion and there is no justification as to why they are not coming forth to depose before the Court and in fact the reason for non-deposition is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in 'Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another', 2022(10) SCC 51, Mohd. Muslim (a) Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", 2023 AIR(SC) 1648, Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh" 2023 SCC Online SC 918 and Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha" in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169 of 2023.

5. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Pannu, learned AAG, Punjab on instructions from SI Sukhpal Singh, who is present in the Court has stated that it is correct that the petitioner has faced incarceration for 3 years and 2 months and it is also correct that the charges were framed in the present case on 07.10.2021 which is more 2 years and 7 months ago and according to his instructions six prosecution witnesses have been examined and four witnesses have been given up. So far as the antecedents of the petitioner is concerned, he submitted that the petitioner was earlier involved in one case under the NDPS Act in which he has been acquitted. He has however opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the recovered quantity from the petitioner was 10,000 tablets of Tramadol, which falls in the category of commercial quantity, and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is hit by the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is a case where the petitioner has faced incarceration for 3 years and 2 months. The petitioner is stated to be not involved in any other case because earlier he was involved in one more case in which he has already been acquitted. The charges in the present case were framed on 07.10.2021 w