Crl. Misc. No. M-31661 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-31661 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 01, 2011 Harpreet Singh @ Mintu .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. I. P. S. Kohli, Advocate for Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Harpreet Singh @ Mintu has filed this petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.103 dated 31.08.2011, under Sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short – the Act) (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Khanna, Police District Khanna. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, 60 kilograms of poppy Crl. Misc. No. M-31661 of 2011 2 husk contained in two bags was recovered from Balero vehicle being driven by the petitioner with his co-accused Davinder Singh sitting on the middle seat. One bag was lying on the front seat and the other bag on the middle seat. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there are two accused and the total quantity of poppy husk is 60 kilograms and two separate recovery memos were prepared, and therefore, it cannot be said that quantity of poppy husk recovered from each accused was commercial. I have considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted at this stage. Both the bags of poppy husk were recovered from the vehicle being driven by the petitioner and occupied by non-petitioner Davinder Singh also. At this stage, it cannot be said that both the accused i.e. the petitioner and Davinder Singh were in separate possession of one bag each of poppy husk. Consequently, in view of Section 37 of the Act, bail cannot be granted in the case of commercial quantity of poppy husk. In addition to the aforesaid, the Balero vehicle was also bearing fake registration number. For the reasons aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. November 01, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-31661 of 2011 3