JUDGMENT :

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. The prayer in this fifth petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.48 dated 06.04.2021 under Sections 22(c)/61 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa.

2. The brief facts of the case are that 12,000 tablets containing the salt ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’ were recovered from a vehicle in which Tarsem Singh (since granted the concession of bail vide order dated 06.02.2024 passed in CRM-M-43711-2023, Annexure P-6) and Sharwan Singh (since granted the concession of bail vide order dated 16.08.2023 passed in CRM-M-12368-2023, Annexure P-6) were travelling and the petitioner-Gurpreet Singh was the driver.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

4. 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. As he is a first-time offender, in custody for 02 years 04 months and 24 days and only 10 out of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 5769/2022 and Arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM (NDPS) No. 442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman & others Vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 3221/2023 and Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM (NDPS) No. 1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023, moreso, when two co-accused, namely, Tarsem Singh and Sharwan Singh have been granted the concession of bail by this Court.

5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is a first time offender, in custody for more than 02 years and 04 months but only 10 out of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and that two co-accused have been granted the similar concession.

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

7. 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.”

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

“1. There ar