104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 24.02.2025 Rajwinder Singh @ Karan ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No. 171 dated 17.11.2024, registered under Sections 15, 29 of NDPS Act, at Police Station City Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that on 17.11.2024, the Police received a secret information to the effect that Sonu son of Bohar Singh and Karan (petitioner) son of Permatma Singh are involved in smuggling of poppy husk and they purchase the same at low price from other States and sell at high price in different cities. It was informed that they were coming in truck bearing registration No.HP-12-8481 with driver Harpreet Singh @ Happy and cleaner Barinder Singh @ Raju and in case of barricading on highway of Moga to Jalandhar, they could be caught with poppy husk with the truck. On receiving the information, ruqa was sent and raiding team was constituted. On laying the barricading, the truck as disclosed was stopped. Driver of the truck disclosed his name as Harpreet Singh @ Happy, whereas, the other person disclosed his name as Barinder Singh @ Raju. On conducing search of the truck, 105 Kgs of poppy husk was recovered. They failed to produce any licence regarding the possession of the same. Hence, they were arrested on the spot. The FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. Disclosure statements of the accused were recorded and complicity of the petitioner was prima facie found in the case. Hence, apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, for the grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Court after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, dismissed the same vide order dated 14.01.2025. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that neither the petitioner was arrested on the spot nor any recovery was effected from him. He submits that the allegation qua whatsapp call by the petitioner, is not admissible evidence, as the same are in the absence of certificate under Section 65-B of the IT Act. It is submitted that there being no prima facie case having been made out against the petitioner, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that name of the petitioner was duly mentioned in the secret information and lateron during the investigation as well his complicity was found in the present case. He submits that recovery effected from the co-accused is commercial in nature and thus, provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted. He submits that the investigation is at the initial stage and thus, no case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that FIR was registered on the basis of the secret information. Name of the petitioner was also duly mentioned in the secret information. The truck as disclosed in the secret information was stopped at the barricade and on conducting search 105 of poppy husk, which is commercial in quantity was recovered. Needless to say that provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. The investigation is at threshold. The contentions raised by counsel for petitioner regarding involvement of the petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused cannot be appreciated at this stage.

7. For the consideration