Crl. Misc. No. M-32030 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32030 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.12.2010 Hanif Mohammad ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Hanif Mohammad son of Maskin Shah, has filed the present petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 70 dated 26.08.2007, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985(for short “the NDPS Act”), by the police of Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that nothing was recovered from the petitioner. He was stated to have, decamped from the place of recovery. The prosecution claimed that 175 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from Rakesh Crl. Misc. No. M-32030 of 2010 -2- Kumar, co-accused of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 25.06.2010 and since then, he is in judicial custody. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any NDPS Act cases. The conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 7. Needless to mention here that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) December 06, 2010 Judge naresh.k