CRM No. M-23519 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-23519 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.9.2009 Kulbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioner, under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar, vide FIR No.24 dated 24th March, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital from 19th March, 2009 to 26th March, 2009 while the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 24th March, 2009. Thus, the petitioner could not be possibly involved in the matter. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The allegation in the FIR is that a truck was intercepted by CRM No. M-23519 of 2009 2 the police on 24th March, 2009 near a T-point. On seeing the police party, two persons alighted from the truck and ran towards the fields. One of them was the petitioner. On checking, 25 bags of poppy husk, each containing 34 Kgs., were recovered from the truck. In view of the seriousness of the allegations in the FIR and the large quantity of the contraband recovered from the truck, I do not find it a fit case for granting the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on medical certificate, Annexure P-1 is misplaced. The petitioner had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No. M-10898 of 2009, relying upon the same certificate. However, learned State counsel had submitted that the doctor, who had issued the medical certificate, had also been arrayed as accused in the FIR. The petition was, thus, dismissed. I do not find any ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel has not been able to show how the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition is, thus, dismissed being devoid of merit. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 03, 2009 'rajpal'