233

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.247 dated 06.12.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ only, Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and Section 249 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Inspector/SHO Satpal Singh’, who had reported that on 06.12.2024, when he was leading a team of police officials, deputed for patrolling duty, a car make Venue, bearing registration No.PB46-AF-0704 colour white, was intercepted. According to above-named police officer, five persons were travelling in the abovementioned car, but two managed to flee, whereas three were apprehended and when search of the abovementioned car was conducted, 4.660 kg of Heroin, one .32 bore revolver, and five live cartridges were recovered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were completed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation on interrogation, the abovementioned three persons suffered their disclosure statement, wherein they disclosed their identity as ‘Makhan’, ‘Sajjan’ (the petitioner herein) and ‘William’ and also revealed the names of two other persons, who fled from the spot, as ‘Harpal’ and ‘Gursewak’.

4. The learned State Counsel has filed short reply as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not the owner of the car, and that in fact, he had hired the abovementioned car for visit to Amritsar on payment basis. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of contraband was from the car and as the car was not being driven or owned by the petitioner, for recovery of any contraband or weapon, the petitioner cannot be held liable.

7. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than one year and five months, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the instant case is the fit case, wherein the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act should be relaxed and the benefit of bail should be accorded to the petitioner.

8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner is the member of a group involved in the trading of narcotic substance at large scale, and that quantity of contraband recovered from the car, wherein the petitioner was travelling, coupled with the recovered weapon, speaks in volumes, in itself, about the scale of trade by the petitioner. According to learned State Counsel, the abovementioned quantity of ‘Heroin’ comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. As per learned State Counsel, the twin conditions prescribed under Section-37 of NDPS Act does not stand complied with in the present case and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

9. The record ha