IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15614 of 2010 Date of decision : 12.8.2010 Mohinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of information given by Inspector Parminder Singh. It is alleged that Inspector Parminder Singh along with other police officials was going for special checking and patrolling towards village Pandori Lepran and Ramgarh on a Government vehicle. When the police party reached near water tank ahead of village Lepran, one Sikh gentleman holding a bag in his hand was standing there. On seeing the police party, he turned his face away. On account of suspicion, he was apprehended. He disclosed his name as Mohinder Singh (petitioner). On search of the petitioner, opium weighing 4 kgs was recovered Crl. Misc. No. M-15614 of 2010 [2] from the bag that he was carrying in his right hand. The petitioner was arrested and FIR was registered for the offence under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is in custody since 1.3.2009. The trial in the case has not made any progress. As per the Chemical Examiner report, the sample was found to contain 0.88% of morphine. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the percentage of morphine out of the block of the entire lot would work out to about 36 gms which is non-commercial quantity. In E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2008 (2) RCR (Crl.) 597 (SC) it was held that the narcotic drug found in the said case in possession of the appellant therein as per the Analyst’s report was 60 gms. which was more than 5 gm, i.e. small quantity, but less than 250 gms, i.e. commercial quantity. The quantity of 60 gms, it was observed, was lesser than the commercial quantity, but greater than the small quantity. Therefore, the appellant therein it was held was liable to be punished under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. In the present case also, the recovered contraband is more than the small quantity but less than the commercial quantity. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The prosecution is to establish its case by leading evidence. In the circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court shall be admitted to bail. It is, however, made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and it is only for Crl. Misc. No. M-15614 of 2010 [3] the purposes of disposing of the application for bail. The learned trial Court shall consider the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of evidence and material independently as adduced before it. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 12, 2010 amit