225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-58838-2024 Date of decision : 01.03.2025 Sukhdev Singh @ Monu .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Pranav Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, A.A.G., Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.207 dated 13.09.2023, under Sections 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party while on patrolling on 13.09.2023, when arriving from Mahilpur, they saw a white colour car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner in which two persons were sitting. The police party succeeded in stopping the car. The driver of the car, on asking, disclosed his name to be Dilbag Singh @ Cheema and the person sitting on his adjoining seat, disclosed his name as Sukhdev Singh @ Monu (present petitioner). They were suspected to be carrying some contraband and thus, given an offer to be searched. On the search of Dilbag Singh, 289 grams of heroin was recovered from the polythene bag which was recovered from left pocket of Capri, whereas from the search of the petitioner, a transparent polythene bag was found in his left pocket of the capri and 100 grams of heroin was recovered from him. Both failed to produce any licence for possession of the contraband and thus, FIR was registered and they were arrested on the spot. On the registration of FIR, investigation commenced. Samples were taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Ld. Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur for grant of bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the same was declined by the Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 20.09.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged recovery was effected from the petitioner at a public place, however, no independent witness from the public was joined by the police party. He submits that the alleged recovery has been effected from the person of the petitioner but there is gross violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. He submits that the co-accused, namely, Dilbag Singh, from whom 289 grams of heroin was recovered has already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. He submits that though the petitioner is involved in 02 more cases, however, he is on bail in the said cases. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, however, till date the prosecution has not been able to conclude the trial. He thus submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, he deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the recovery effected was of 100 grams of heroin has been effected from the petitioner on compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. He submits that the co-accused of the petitioner has been granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and not on merits. He submits that the petitioner is involved in two other cases out of which one case is under NDPS Act, and thus, he is a habitual offender. He further submits that though the recovery effected from the person of the petitioner is 100 grams of heroin, however, both were travelling in the same car and thus, the total recovery effected in the present case comes to 389 grams of heroin, which is a commercial quantity, and thus provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted. He produced the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court. He, on instructions, has submitted