Crl.M. No. M- 9919 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M- 9919 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.5.2011 ... Baljit Singh ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ... K.C. Puri, J. Baljit Singh – petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 269 dated 26.12.2009 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. As per allegation of the prosecution, police received a secret information that Kesar Singh – non-applicant was in habit of selling poppy husk by carrying the same in Scorpio vehicle No. DL-3F-2973. A raid was conducted and recovery of 90 kgs of poppy husk was made from the said Scorpio vehicle and Kesar Singh was arrested. It is alleged that on 9.3.2010, Bhola Singh has made an extra judicial confession before Darshan Singh that poppy husk recovered Crl.M. No. M- 9919 of 2011 -2- from Kesar Singh belong to him and the present petitioner. The name of the petitioner cropped up after more than 2 months of the occurrence. Bhola Singh has been allowed the concession of regular bail by this Court in Crl.M.No. M-12091 of 2010 vide order dated 9.7.2010. The secret information was received against Kesar Singh alone and recovery was effected from Kesar Singh alone. So, without commenting on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case to allow the concession of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition stands accepted. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer on the following conditions, as envisaged in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. :- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation, as and when required, by the police; ii)that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and iii)that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. ( K.C. Puri ) 4.5.2011 Judge chugh