(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Relevant record also perused.
(2.) DEBATABLE in this case is as to whether the recovery of 36 kgs of poppy husk from the petitioner pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him on 3.8.2004 would be added to the earlier recovery of 38 kgs of poppy husk allegedly shown to have been recovered from the petitioner on 17.7.2004. Mr. Sidhu, while strengthening his arguments states that if the aforesaid two recoveries are segregated in this case, then in that eventuality each recovery would fall under the head 'non-commercial quantity' and the petitioner, thus, would be entitled to the concession of bail as provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, would not stand in his way. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sidhu prays for bail.
(3.) I find force in the submissions made by Mr. Sidhu. I am also conscious of the embargo contained in Section 37 of the Act but keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case in which there is a gap of one month in both the recoveries, the contention raised by Mr. Sidhu as to whether it would really fall under the head 'non-commercial quantity' becomes a point for consideration, which at least entitles the petitioner for the relief of regular bail.