In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 7108 of 2011 Decided on Aug 18,2011 Krishna Shah --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.K.Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Rai,DAG Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is a petition for regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 168 dated 23.6.2010, under Section 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar Mohali. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is in custody from 23.6.2010 on account of recovery of one Kg of charas and 6 Killo and 500 grams of Ganja. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner had applied for bail before the learned Court below but the same was dismissed on the ground that recovery of one Kg of charas falls within the definition of commercial quantity, therefore, provisions of Section 37 of the Act are attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Ratto Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2004 (1) R.C.R (Criminal ) 501 in which it has been held that word commercial quantity in respect of charas is any quantity more than one Kg. Since the recovery of charas is one Kg, CRM-M- 7108 of 2011 -2- therefore, it does not fall within the definition of commercial quantity. He also submits that insofar as 'Ganja' is concerned, commercial quantity would start from 20 Kg and quantity of 6killo and 500 grams of Ganja falls within non-commercial quantity. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor any other case is pending against him under the Act. This fact is admitted by the learned State Counsel on instructions received from ASI Tarsem Singh. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observations on the merit, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. August 18,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge