Crl. Misc. No. M-1845 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-1845 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.3.2011 Balwinder Singh @ Bindar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 15/25/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, District Patiala, vide FIR No.173 dated 24th March, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time of occurrence, petitioner was admitted in the hospital and thus there is no question of his being involved in the crime. He submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated and thus, deserves the concession of bail. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, contends that the poppy husk was recovered at 6.30 A.M. in the morning and the petitioner reported to the doctor on the same day at 11.00 A.M. He submits that statement of Dr. Ashok has been recorded by the Crl. Misc. No. M-1845 of 2011 investigating officer in this regard under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Heard. As per the prosecution story, on 24th March, 2010, on receipt of secret information against the petitioner Balwinder Singh and co-accused Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, a Naka was laid and Innova vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55D-8959 was intercepted. The petitioner was driving the said Innova car. From the said vehicle, eight bags of poppy husk each containing 35 Kgs were recovered. While Kuldeep Singh was apprehended on the spot, Balwinder Singh @ Bindar (petitioner herein) and co-accused Sunil Kumar alias Sonu ran away from the spot. It is stand of the investigating agency that the medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner is of no consequence as occurrence relates to 6.30 A.M. on 24th March, 2010, while he reported to the doctor at 11.00 A.M. In view of the commercial nature of recovery effected, Section 37 of the Act would be attracted to the present case. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to the concession of bail. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 3.3.2011 'rajpal'