IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 17, 2010 1. Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-5645 of 2010 Tarandeep Singh @ Bittu .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-12193 of 2010 Sunil Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Gautam Dutt and Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocates, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This shall dispose of two petitions Crl. Misc. No. M-5645 of 2010 [2] viz. Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-5645 of 2010 titled `Tarandeep Singh @ Bittu vs. State of Punjab’ and Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-12193 of 2010 titled `Sunil Kumar vs. State of Punjab’ as both arise out of common FIR. 2. The petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.121 dated 27.3.2009 under Sections 18 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered with Police Station, Sadar, Patiala. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner (s) contends that although recovery of 5 kgs of opium has been effected from the petitioners in the two petitions, however, the chemical content has been found to be only 3.3% in 10 grams which would constitute total quantity of the offending chemical to be 160 grams i.e. non-commercial quantity and therefore the petitioners would be entitled to concession of bail in view of 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 597, E. Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau. 5. I have also taken note of the fact that there have been serious allegations against Sarabjeet Singh, Sub Inspector, in relation to possible false implication in a case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, Crl. Misc. No. M-5645 of 2010 [3] 1985 and in another case in regard to allegation of false implication in a dispute between private parties for taking possession of shops. Relevant portion of the enquiry report is extracted hereunder:- “6. The allegations levelled by the accused in Para No.6 of the writ regarding the failure of the sample in case FIR No.131 dated 2.9.2009 u/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act, PS Julkan are found true. The sample was failed on 10.9.2009 and due to this a cancellation report was filed on 5.12.2009. A departmental enquiry has been initiated against SI Sarabjeet Singh. 7. The allegations levelled by the accused in Para No.7 of the writ regarding FIR No.186 dated 14.12.2009 u/s 447/427/120- B/148/149 IPC, PS Julkan. On enquiry, it was found that this case was registered on the complaint of one Gurpal Singh s/o Parkash Singh r/o village Dundi Majra. There was a dispute of shops between two parties and the complainant party had alleged the connivance of SI Sarabjeet Singh with the other party for letting them to take the possession of the shops. On this complaint, the enquiry was conducted by SP(D), Patiala, who had indicted SI Sarabjeet Singh as one of the accused u/s 120-B IPC. SI Sarabjeet Singh was arrested in this case on 22.3.2010 and the case is under investigation. Besides this, another departmental enquiry is being initiated against SI Sarabjeet Singh.” 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitions are allowed. 7. Bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (AJAI LAMBA) September 17, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?