IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-33218 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: March 10, 2011 Kuldeep Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vide FIR No.279 dated 3.8.2010 at police station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Only evidence against him is a disclosure statement of a co- accused. He, thus, submits that petitioner is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He has referred to affidavit dated 21.2.2010 of Dayal Chand, Sub Inspector, Special Task Force, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt., which was placed on record, to show that petitioner alongwith co-accused had brought 14 quintals of poppy husk from Rajasthan on Crl.Misc.No.M-33218 of 2010 - 2 – 3.8.2010 when Surinder Singh, Inspector, Detective Staff was present on Barara Chowk for checking alongwith other police officials. He raided a tubewell kotha of one Baldev Saini. From there a huge quantity of poppy husk (257 kgs.- 300 grams) was recovered. One of the co-accused, who was present on the spot, namely, Mahender Singh fled away from the place in a Swift car driven by his son Pawan Saini. He was later arrested in connection with FIR No.324 dated 3.9.2010, police station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra alongwith co-accused Anoop Kumar, Rinku and Rambir. During interrogation, they disclosed about involvement of petitioner and the fact that 14 quintals of poppy husk was brought from Ghasunda Dam, District Chitorgarh in Rajasthan in July-2010 in truck bearing No.RJ14-IG-1965. It appears that petitioner was also arrested in the said case and is behind bars at present. In view of nature of allegations made in the FIR, I am of the considered view that section 37 of the Act would be attracted to the facts of the case. Petitioner is thus, not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. March 10, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE