Crl. Misc. No. M-15555 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-155555 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.7.2010 Sukhwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as “the NDPS Act”) at Police Station Banur, District Patiala, vide FIR No.56 dated 25th May, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not followed when petitioner was apprehended. He further submits that certain co-accused have been granted bail in this case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. According to allegations, on 25th May, 2008, the petitioner was apprehended at the spot while carrying 350 Kgs of poppy husk in a truck. The truck was carrying seventeen and half bags each containing Crl. Misc. No. M-15555 of 2010 2 20 Kgs of poppy husk. In view of the commercial quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted to the facts of the case and thus, in my view, petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. As regards plea of the petitioner of parity with other accused, the same was dealt with in earlier bail petition (Crl. Misc. No. M-12086 of 2009), preferred by him. It was held therein that petitioner was apprehended on the spot while the others had escaped. They had, thus, claimed that they had been falsely implicated. Exactly similar pleas have been taken in the present petition as were raised in the earlier bail application. No fresh ground, whatsoever, has been agitated. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, this court is refraining from doing so considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 29.7.2010 'rajpal'