IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-19707 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.9.2010 Parminder Singh @ Tidda …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. S.S. Chohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 15, 25 and 60 of the NDPS Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of memo sent by SI Rajesh Kumar, SHO Police Station Machhiwara, District Ludhiana. It has been alleged by the complainant that he along with other police officials was present for checking of suspects at Mahadipur roundabout. At that time, one red colour Scorpio car came from village Gadhi Bet at about 9.30 a.m. The car was signalled to stop. The driver, however, tried to turn the car back. SI Rajesh Kumar alongwith other police officials stopped the car and three persons were sitting in it. One young man with his hair cut short whose name was Raman Kumar @ Sairy and was known to SI and the police party, after opening the back door of the car ran away towards fields. Hawaldar Darsan Lal, HC Pardeep Kumar were sent Crl. Misc. No. M-19707 of 2010 [2] to chase him. The names of the other two persons were asked. The driver of the car gave his name as Parminder Singh @ Tidda (petitioner) and the person sitting on the left seat disclosed his name as Malkit Singh Shekhon. SI Rajesh Kumar introduced himself and submitted that he wanted to search them and their car. After completing necessary formalities, the search of the car was conducted and two bags containing about 28 kgs each of poppy husk was recovered. Samples were drawn and the recovered contraband was taken in possession. The recovery in the present case is of 56 Kgs of poppy husk. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Raman Kumar @ Sairy who had run away has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure P4). The petitioner, it is submitted, is in custody since registration of FIR on 17.11.2009. It is submitted that 56 Kgs of poppy husk was recovered from two persons which is liable to be divided amongst them. A reference has also been made to the case of Surjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2009 (1) RCR (Crl.) 616 (P&H) wherein the petitioner was granted bail as there were two inquires conducted by higher officers of police. In one inquiry conducted by SP (Crimes) he was found innocent and in the other inquiry conducted by IGP, he was held guilty. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been implicated because one Gurdeep Singh had become inimical to him because of civil litigation pending between them. Learned counsel submits that in the inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crl. Misc. No. M-19707 of 2010 [3] Ludhiana (South), the petitioner was found innocent in terms of inquiry report dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure P5). Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the recovered contraband is commercial quantity and the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. It is submitted that there are 12 other cases registered against the petitioner. However, the petitioner has been acquitted in one case. Besides, a FIR No.47 dated 21.3.2001 for the offence under Section 15 of the NDPS stands registered against the petitioner. Moreover, there are cases also under the Punjab Excise Act. The petitioner, it is submitted, has been acquitted in two excise cases. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner was driver of the car which was signalled to stop by SI Rajesh Kumar, SHO Police Station Machhiwara District Ludhiana. On search of the car, 56 Kgs of contraband was recovered. More than 50 kgs of poppy husk is commercial quantity as per item 110 of the notification dated 16.7.1996 specifying ‘small quantity and commercial quantity’. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the benefit of the weight of bags is liable to be given. However, in my view about 1 kg weight of bags would not make much difference as the case is not that of a border line one between commercial quantity and non-commercial quantity. The contention that the recovered contraband is liable to be sub-divided between the occupants of the Crl. Misc. No. M-19707 of 2010 [4] car for the purpose of determining whether it is commercial quantity or not is not tenable. A Full Bench of this Court in Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinda V State of Punjab, 2005 (1) RCR (Crl.) 168 has held in respect of contraband recovered from more than one accused that while seeking bail it cannot be contended that the quantity recovered be divided equally between them for determining whether the quantity recovered can be termed as small, less than commercial or commercial quantity. Besides, there are other cases pending against the petitioner. In order to give the benefit of concession of bail in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail. In view of the earlier cases already registered, the petitioner has the propensity towards committing the crime under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that while on bail he is not likely to commit the offence under the Act. The case of Surjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab (supra) referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner was a case of recovery of 12 bags of poppy husk weighing 35 kgs each from the accused. In the inquiry conducted by SP (Crimes), the accused was found innocent. In the second inquiry conducted by IG Police, the IG found the accused to be guilty. In the said circumstances, the petitioner therein was granted bail. The ratio of the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case as the said case was not a case where there were other cases pending against the accused. In the inquiry report (Annexure P5) submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana (South), it was Crl. Misc. No. M-19707 of 2010 [5] observed that Gurdeep Singh Sarpanch of Mahadipur in collusion with SI/SHO Rajesh Kumar got FIR No.165 dated 17.11.2009 registered at Police Station Machhiwara. It was, therefore, recommended to cancel the same. However, cancellation report has not been filed. Rather a charge-report (Challan) has been filed by the Police in terms of Section 173 CrPC. The role attributed to the petitioner is to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court. At this stage, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 17, 2010 amit