Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -Gobind K.C. @ Nona Nepali son of Prem Kumar, has directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No. 19 dated 24.03.2013, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NDPS Act"), by the police of Police Station P.A.U., Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
(2.) THE prosecution claimed that 24.03.2013 on the basis of suspicion, the police stopped the motorcycle of the petitioner, who disclosed his name as Gobind K.C. @ Nona Nepali son of Prem Kumar K.C., whereas the person who was pillion rider disclosed his name as Avtar Singh @ Tari son of Baldev Singh. They were carrying a plastic envelope. After completion of the statutory formalities and in the wake of search of envelope, 300 gms. intoxicant powder was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case by the police, so, he is entitled to the concession of regular bail, is neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur Versus Murlidhar Soni and others, : 2004 (2) RCR (Cri) 900, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, while deciding criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction, it was observed that there was no evidence to show that the accused had the knowledge that bundle contained contraband or the accused was in its conscious possession. But that stage of evidence has not yet reached in the present case. Sequelly, the observations of this Court in case Lakhbir Singh @ Sahbi Versus State of Punjab,, 2002 (1) RCR (Cri) 601 and of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case Abdul Gani Versus State of M.P., : 2005 (4) RCR (Cri) 194, would not come to the rescue of the petitioner, at this stage, particularly when, as indicated here -in -above, there are direct allegations that commercial quantity of intoxicant powder was recovered from the possession of the accused.
(3.) THEREFORE , the commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and since, the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted in this case, so, to my mind, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the gravity of offence and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here -in -above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.;