JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J. 

1. The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and states that they would have no objection to the conditions, i.e., surrender of weapons and are also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that the further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that the quantity of contraband involved in the case falls in the commercial category.

5. The facts of the case are being taken from FIR annexed with petition as Annexure P-1 as well as from reply dated 16.03.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prosecution's case is that the police party was patrolling to detect crime. When a secret informer informed the investigator that one Devdutt and Naved Khan (petitioner) deal in Marijuana Leaves (Bhang). Few days earlier, Devdutt had sent one Charan Singh Resident of Gadiya Mohalla, Hodal through tractor for bringing bhang which had to come from Telangana. The bhang was kept in the tractor's safety tank and petitioner-Naved Khan was piloting the said tractor. The informer further told that Naved Khan and Dev Dutt had kept one packet of ganja in their white colour swift car as a sample to sell the same. Based on this information, the investigator complied with the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act and laid down a Naka. They stopped a swift car by giving signal to stop. However, as per the investigator, the car's driver started reversing the car and on that, they apprehended the driver along with the person siffing beside the driver. On enquiry, the car's driver told his name as Devdutt, whereas the person siffing in the adjoining seat revealed his name as Naved Khan (petitioner). After that, police also stopped the tractor and issued notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The police recovered 179 Kg and 550 grams of bhang from the safety tank of the tractor. The police also recovered 5 kg ganja patti from the car in which the petitioner was sitting on the seat adjacent to the driver seat.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the recovery from the car is just 5 Kg which is 25% of the commercial quantity and there is no evidence to connect the recovery of 179 kg and 550 grams which was recovered from the tractor with the petitioner. He further argued that the trial is delaying and petitioner's custody as of date in this case is 01 year, 09 months and 20 days which is a grave injustice.

7. State counsel opposes the bail and argued that the petitioner was arrested on the spot and immediately after that the tractor was also spotted which is a direct connection between the recovery from the tractor and the petitioner and in fact the total ganja patti recovered from the car of the petitioner is 5 kg and 179 Kg 550 grams from his tractor and in all it is 184 kg and 550 grams. State counsel further submitted that it is not a case for bail.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

REASONING:

9. An analysis of the above said arguments clearly point out that the recovery of commercial quantity was from tractor which was not being driven by the petitioner. Although, there is sufficient evidence connecting the petitio