In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 17019 of 2011 Decided on Sept 15,2011 Sanjay Kumar --Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Neeraj Bhutani, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik,AAG, Haryana Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) The petitioner has prayed for regular bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No. 269 dated 16.7.2010, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act' ) at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, District Rohtak. Allegation against the petitioner is that the police party was doing routine vehicle checking at Delhi by Pass. At that time, driver of one white colour alto car bearing registration No. DL-2CR-9149 on seeing the police party left his car on the road and ran away. The car was searched and one Driving License No. PO 8022001225918 of Sanjay Kumar son of Jagbir Singh valid up to 11.2.2016 and RC of car in the name of Bijender Singh son of Daryav Singh, insurance of car valid up to 11.4.2011 and a domestic gas copy in the name of Sahid Raj Bir Gas Service Lakhan Majra, Rohtak Chiri District Rohtak, were recovered from the dash board of the car. A packet covered by yellow tape plaster was also recovered from near the driver seat of the car and charas weighing one CRM-M-17019 of 2011 -2- Kg and 400 grams wrapped in yellow polythene bag was recovered. The petitioner had applied for bail before the learned trial Court which was dismissed on the ground that the recovery of narcotic is of commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has been falsely implicated in this case as there is no reference of the independent witness in the FIR who had allegedly signed the recovery memo. He has further submitted that the said independent witness is a neighbour of the Investigating Officer, therefore, recovery has been planted upon the petitioner. During the course of hearing, the Investigating Officer appeared before this Court and had stated that the independent witness is not his neighbour. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to answer as to how his driving license has been recovered from the dash board of the car if he was not driving the said car at that time because had his driving license been lost, the petitioner would have immediately lodged the complaint/DDR in the concerned police station but nothing has been brought on record in this regard. Therefore, keeping in view the commercial quantity of charas, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail and hence the same is hereby dismissed. Sept 15,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge