209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 Sandeep @ Koka ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vijesh Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition praying for granting him regular bail in case FIR No.241 dated 07.09.2023 under Section 15-C of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Narwana, District Jind.

2. As per the facts of the case, on 07.09.2023, the Police party received a secret information to the effect that Sandeep @ Koka (petitioner) is indulged in selling poppy husk and if raid is conducted, he can be arrested along with the contraband. On receiving the information, the raid was conducted at the disclosed place and person found there was apprehended. On asking he disclosed his name as Sandeep @ Koka. Three bags were found lying there. He was given offer to be searched in the presence of the gazetted officer. Search of all the three bags was conducted and in all 52 kgs 700 grams of poppy husk was recovered from the bags. The petitioner failed to produce any licence regarding possession of the same and thus, he was arrested on the spot. Samples taken were sent to the FSL. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 16.10.2023. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court praying for grant of bail.

3. It has been vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in this case. He has submitted that the FIR has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of the secret information, however, there is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He has submitted that recovery has been planted on the petitioner without joining any independent witnesses. It is submitted that though the petitioner is involved in two other cases, however, he is on bail in those cases. He submits that even otherwise quantity recovered from the petitioner is 52 kgs 700 grams of poppy husk including the weight of bags, which is marginally above the commercial quantity. He submits that the investigation is complete and charges are framed. He, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner. He submits that recovery was effected after due compliance of the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act. He submits that recovery effected from the petitioner is commercial and thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in this case. On instruction from ASI Rampal, he has submitted that the petitioner in involved in two other cases under the NDPS Act. He submits that the investigation is complete and charges are framed, however, out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of the secret information. The quantity recovered from the petitioner is 52 Kgs 700 grams of poppy husk, whereas, commercial quantity is above 50 kgs of poppy husk. Though the petitioner is involved in two other cases, however, as per custody certificate, he is on bail in those cases. The investigation is complete and charges are framed.

6. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case o