Sandeep Singh @ Seepa .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Shivender Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.58 dated 15.03.2023, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City South, District Moga.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the police party while on patrolling on 15.03.2023 saw a clean shaven boy on the left side of the cremation ground. On seeing the police, he got perplexed and from the right pocket of his pant, he took out and threw one plastic bag on the ground. On suspicion, he was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name as Sandeep Singh @ Seepa (petitioner). The plastic bag thrown by him was searched and 90 tablets of Etizolam were recovered from the same. Petitioner failed to produce any license regarding the same so, he was arrested on the spot and FIR was registered. The samples of the contraband taken were sent to the FSL. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented and charges were framed. Petitioner approached the learned Judge, Special Court, Moga praying for the grant of bail. However, after hearing counsel for both the sides, learned Judge, Special Court, petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-5382- 2024, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.09.2024. Hence, this is the second petition praying for grant of regular bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is behind bars since 15.03.2023. It is submitted that the alleged recovery has been effected from the public place however, no independent witness has been joined in the present case. He submits that there is a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as well. It is submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Learned State counsel however, has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He, on instructions from ASI Chamkaur Singh, submits that the quantity was recovered from the petitioner after due compliance of the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act and the same is a commercial quantity as the same weighed 18.9 grams of Etizolam. He submits that the presence of the contraband was established by the FSL report. It is submitted that on completion of the investigation, challan was presented and charges were framed and as on date, out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 06 witnesses already stand examined. He submits that as per the custody certificate, petitioner is not involved in any other case of the similar nature.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that petitioner was arrested on 15.03.2023. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented. As per the information, out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 06 witnesses already stand examined. Petitioner is custody certificate produced by learned State counsel.

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 of the petitioner is covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:-

19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on r