CRM No. M-12086 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-12086 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2009 Sukhwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner in this case is seeking regular bail in a case registered against him under Section 15/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide FIR No.56 dated 25th May, 2008 at Police Station Banur, District Patiala. On 25th May, 2008, when a police party was on patrol duty, it nabbed the petitioner alongwith co-accused while plying a truck, in which 17½ bags of poppy husk were loaded, without any permit or licence. The petitioner alongwith his three co-accused was found in possession of 350 Kgs of poppy husk. 17½ bags of poppy husk were found in the truck each containing 20 Kgs thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no independent witness was associated at the time of alleged recovery, mandatory provisions of the Act had not been followed and thus, the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel also CRM No. M-12086 of 2009 2 claimed parity to certain other accused, who, according to the counsel, have been granted bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. According to the prosecution story, the case is of chance recovery. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused was found in possession of 350 Kgs of poppy husk. The petitioner is stated to be owner and driver of the truck. In view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial. The contention of the counsel as regards joining of independent witness and non-compliance with provisions of the Act, are issues to be considered at the stage of trial. The petitioner cannot also claim parity with the other accused who are said to have been enlarged on bail. According to the FIR, the other accused had escaped from the spot under the cover of darkness. The petitioner was, however, caught on the spot. Thus, the petitioner cannot, at this stage, claim that he has been falsely implicated in the case, which plea may have been raised by the other accused, who are stated to have been escaped under the cover of darkness. I, thus find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 15, 2009 'rajpal'