212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 Anup Kumar @ Anoop Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition praying for granting regular bail in case FIR No.134 dated 04.04.2024 under Section 15C of the NDPS Act (Section 27-A of the NDPS Act was added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 04.04.2024, while the police party was on patrolling, saw a car. On seeing the police party, driver of the said car got perplexed and he tried to reverse the same. On suspicion, the car was stopped by the police party. On asking, driver of the car disclosed his name as Anup Kumar (petitioner) son of Ram Singh. Two plastic bags were seen lying on the rear seat of the car. The police suspected some contraband therein and thus, after giving offer for the personal search, the same was conducted and from the rear seat of the car two plastic bags were recovered whereas three plastic bags were recovered from the trunk (diggi) of the car, which were checked and on weighing the same, it was found to be containing 12 Kg. poppy-husk in each bag and in total 60 Kgs. poppy-husk was recovered. Driver of the car failed to produce any licence regarding possession of the same. Hence, he was arrested on the spot and on registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and recovered substance was sent to the FSL lab and the challan was presented. On framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Special Judge, Fast Track, under NDPS Act, Fatehabad 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 25.10.2024. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He further submits that 60 Kg. poppy-husk was planted upon the petitioner and the alleged recovery has been effected from a public place and independent witness has not been joined. He submits that there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and thus, his false implication is writ large. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 04.04.2024 but till date there is no progress in the trial. He, thus, submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was arrested on the spot and from the car driven by the petitioner, recovery of total 60 Kgs. poppy- husk was effected, which falls under the commercial quantity and hence, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner. On instructions, he submits that the charges have been framed and out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that in the present FIR recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is of 60 Kgs. poppy-husk. He is not involved in any other criminal case. Out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. The custody certificate would reflect that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 02 months & 29 days as on 04.0