Crl. Misc. No. M-37561 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-37561 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.2.2011 Mukhtiar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) 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 & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda, vide FIR No.153 dated 20th October, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to personal enmity with certain retired police officials. According to counsel, the petitioner, who is 65 years old person, could not have absconded from the spot in the presence of number of police officials. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel (on the instructions from ASI Harcharan Singh, who is present in court) has, however, submitted that a co-accused Balkaran Singh, who is nephew of the petitioner, was Crl. Misc. No. M-37561 of 2010 2 arrested from the spot and name of the petitioner figured in his disclosure statement as well. According to him, petitioner is also involved in seven other cases, two of which are under the Opium Act and one under NDPS Act. The petitioner has already been convicted for offence under the Opium Act and the case under NDPS Act is still pending. Heard. In the alleged occurrence, 105 Kgs of poppy husk was recovered. Co-accused Balkaran Singh was arrested on the spot. The officer of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police, after seeking his consent, conducted his search. In his disclosure statement Balkaran Singh stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. In view of the commercial quantity of the contraband, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S would be attracted to the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The present petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 9.2.2011 'rajpal'