IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-22088 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: September 19, 2011 Hakam Rai …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Ankur Malik, for the petitioner Mr.Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana .. 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 sections 18/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vide FIR No.273 dated 10.8.2010 at police station Sector 5, Panchkula. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the alleged occurrence no recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for a considerable period. He is thus entitled to be enlarged on bail. The prayer for bail is, however, opposed by learned State counsel. He submits that in view of commercial nature of contraband recovered, section 37 of the Act would be attracted to the case. Heard. In the alleged occurrence, the investigating agency recovered 10 kgs. of opium. According to prosecution case, said opium was stored in a house in Panchkula. At the Crl.Misc.No.M-22088 of 2011 - 2 - time of raid, petitioner came out of house carrying a heavy bag, but managed to flee. His son was, however, apprehended on the spot. In view of nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. It appears that petitioner had earlier preferred a similar petition (Crl.Misc.No.M-31035 of 2010) which was dismissed vide order dated 26.4.2011, operative part whereof reads thus:- “The allegation in the FIR is that petitioner along with co-accused brought opium and stored the same in house No.536 Sector 9, Panchkula. They were planning to sell the same in Chandigarh using a Skoda car bearing No.HR 70A-2786. On receipt of secret information, raid was conducted at house No.536, Sector 9, Panchkula. Sohal Lal son of the petitioner was arrested on the spot. The petitioner who came out of the house carrying a heavy bag, however, fled from the spot. Co-accused Sohan Lal made a disclosure statement before the investigating agency on the basis of which car in which the petitioner had fled was also recovered. This apart, six other cases under the Act are stated to be pending against the petitioner. In the instant case, heavy quantity of opium (10 kgs) was recovered, thus, Section 37 of the Act would be attracted to the facts of the instant case. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-22088 of 2011 - 3 - In view of aforesaid, there is no merit in the present petition. Same is hereby dismissed. September 19, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3