IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-21904 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.8.2010 Damodar Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Gur Sagar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Singh, AAG, Haryana. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 15 and 16 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of memo sent by Rakesh Kumar ASI who along with other police officials were present at Puli Khala Takhtwal Road in the area of Mandi Kalanwali in connection with patrolling and detection of crime. A young person was seen coming on a motorcycle from the railway crossing side. He had a black colour bag tied around his waist. On seeing the police party, he tried to turn away which raised suspicion of ASI Rakesh Kumar and the motorcyclist was stopped. On asking, he disclosed his name as Sunil son of the petitioner Damodar. On the search that was carried out, 9 kgs of poppyhusk Crl. Misc. No. M-21904 of 2010 [2] was recovered from the bag of black colour that was being carried by Sunil Kumar son of the petitioner Damodar. The recovery has been effected from Sunil Kumar, son of the petitioner. However, in the FIR it is disclosed by Sunil Kumar that the poppyhusk had been brought by his father Damodar (petitioner). The petitioner is also involved in two other cases i.e. FIR No.51 dated 25.9.2009 registered at Police Station Kalanwali and FIR No.46 dated 22.5.2001 registered at Police Station Faridkot which are both in respect of offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and he has been held guilty and convicted in both the cases. It is, therefore, submitted that provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. In the circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required so as to elicit more information and material. In the circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out and the Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 11, 2010 amit