- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as he was found only with 18. 500kgs. of poppy husk. He submits that this Court has granted bail in Zakir Hussain vs. State (1) where six quintals 56 kgs. 500 gms. 'post Chura' was recovered and Misc. Bail No. 2087/92 decided on 12. 3. 1993 where 15 kg. of 'poppy husk' was recovered. He also submits that even where opium and smack was recovered bails have been granted in the cases viz. Banshilal vs. State (2) decided on 10. 1. 1992 where 360 gms. of smack was recovered, Shankerlal Vs. State (3) decided on 17. 1. 1992 where 560 gms. of opium was recovered, Narayanlal vs. State (4) decided on 29. 1. 1992 where 1. 940 kgs. opium was recovered, Ramesh Kumar vs. State (5) decided on 03. 2. 92 where 1. 800 kgs. of opium was recovered, Babulal vs. State (6) decided on 17. 7. 1992 where 210 gms. of opium was recovered, Vijendra vs. State (7) decided on 26. 6. 91 wherein opium was recovered and in Mahipal vs. State of Raj. (8) decided on 05. 2. 1992, the petitioner was granted bail who was alleged to have been found in possession or 16,300 kgs. of opium as the co-accused who had 90. 300 kgs. of opium was granted bail on 10. 1. 1992 in S. B. Cr. Bail Application No. 4232/91. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail for the last four months, so now the petitioner may be released on bail.
(2.) ON the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submits that under the N. D. P. S. Act normally bail should not be granted. He has placed reliance on (9) wherein bail was refused even when the opium recovered was one kg. and the accused had remained on interim bail. He also submits that this Court has also not granted bail even 'post doda' recovered was 160 gms. In Madanlal vs. State (10) decided on 03. 2. 93 and ultimately the application was dismissed as withdrawn. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the case law cited at Bar. In the cases relating to N. D. P. S. Act, after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case this Court is granting bails but granting of bail cannot be a precedent. To my mind if the circumstances do not connect the accused with the recovery, the contraband is recovered in a small quantity which was kept by the accused for his own use, such and 6ther circumstances showing his innocence if satisfies the conscious of the Court according to provisions of amended S. 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act (came into force on 29. 5. 1989) that there exists a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, the Court may grant bail u/s. 439 Cr. P. C. but each case depends upon the facts of its own. It is not necessary to give detailed order while allowing or rejecting the bail application. I have also granted bail in Manjoo Singh vs. State (11) decided on 06. 4. 1993 where 'post Chura' recovered was one kg. and Labhu Lal Chand vs. State (12) where 4-1/2 kgs. of 'post' was recovered, and in Natwar Singh vs. State (13) decided on 22. 10. 1992, after being satisfied with the conditions of S. 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act in view of the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kishanlal (14 ). In the instant case the petitioner Man Singh and one Jarnail Singh r/o Punjab were found in possession of 18. 500 kgs. and 20. 500 kgs. of 'poppy husk' respectively while they were coming from Chirawa. The petitioner had no valid pass or permit granted under the Rules. A perusal of material on record shows that he was asked whether he wants to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and the petitioner did not exercise the option and expressed his desire by stating that his search can be made by the police officer in the presence of Motbirs who were present, so it can't be said that at this stage that provisions have not been followed and any prejudice has been caused. The report of the substance which has been recovered is positive and the sample is reported to be dried capsules of crushed poppy. No reasonable explanation of his innocence has been put forward nor any material has been produced to assist the court in forming an opinion that there is no likelihood of committing offence if bail is granted nor any averment has been made that if bail is granted he will not indulge in such activities. Therefore, on the basis of materials on record and looking to the seriousness of the offence, I am not satisfied at this stage that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. I am supported by the view expressed in Angraj Singh vs. State The counsel for the petitioners cannot take advantage or the case of Zakir Hussain vs. State (supra) as that was a case prior to the amendment of S. 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act and the other cases wherein bails have been granted without considering S. 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act and the decision rendered in Narcotics Control Bureau's case (supra ). Under these circumstances without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail. The application for bail filed by Mansingh is, therefore, rejected. .;