JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Amrit Pal Garg alias Bamba, the petitioner-herein prays for regular bail in case FIR No. 8 dated 1.2.2003 registered at police station Maur, District Bathinda, under, Sections 15/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that Gurdarshan Singh Inspector/SHO police station Maur was present at the bridge of river on 1.2.2003 when at about 3-40 PM a jeep (Canter) bearing registration No. PB-03D-5978 came from the side of Mandi. Three persons were sitting in it, namely, Makhan Singh, Amrit Pal alias Bamba the present petitioners and Darshan Singh. After completing all the mandatory formalities of the Act including preparation of consent memos duly signed by the present petitioner and his co-accused, the jeep was checked in the presence of DSP Jagmohan Singh. 12 bags of poppy husk each weighing 40 Kgs were recovered from the jeep. Consequently, all the three accused were booked in this case. 3. I have heard Mr. RS Ghai, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and M.S. RK Nihalsinghwala, AAG, Punjab. I have also gone through the entire record. 4. The Investigating Officer is also present with the complete police file. During the course of arguments, I had also felt the necessity of perusing the police diaries. 5. Mr. Ghai has argued with full vehemence that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as he is a patient of polio since childhood with deformity of one leg and arm and has 30% permanent disability in the right lower limb. In this context the learned counsel relies upon Annexure P2. He then contends that the petitioner had given his jeep to Makhan Singh on hire basis and in fact he himself was not present in the jeep at the time of alleged recovery, but was later on implicated falsely for certain ulterior motives only because the Registration Certificate was in his name. It is further contended that the petitioner has moved an application before the senior police officers regarding his false implication and that an enquiry was conducted by Shri Bachan Singh Randhawa, SP (Crimes), who made a report that the petitioner is not involved in this case and in fact Makhan Singh and Darshan Singh, co-accused of the petitioner were apprehended by the police while carrying poppy husk. 6. The learned State counsel his refuted the arguments raised by Mr. 6. The learned State counsel his refuted the arguments raised by Mr. Ghai and submitted that the inquiry report indicates that the poppy husk allegedly recovered is of Amrit Pal petitioner only and for this reason the matter being suspicious one has been left to the decision of the Court. 7. During the course of arguments, it has been brought to my notice that the challan has since been filed against the present petitioner and his c0-accused before the concerned Court. 8. To be fair to Mr. Ghai, I may observe that even the enquiry report does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as it does not exonerate him. The S.P. (Crimes) does not give a clean chit to the petitioner and has left the subject undecided by observing that the matter would be decided by the Court on account of suspicious circumstances. 9. A perusal of the police file reveals that the present petitioner was earlier booked in two cases of similar nature. He has earned acquittal in one of the cases whereas the second one is still pending. The police file further reveals that the petitioner indulges in the trafficking of poppy husk. 10. In the present case 12 bags of poppy husk each weighing 40 Kgs were allegedly recovered, which is commercial quantity. The conditions as laid down under Section 37 of the Act are mandatory and in the absence of satisfaction of the said conditions, bail to an accused cannot be granted. Nothing has been highlighted on behalf of the petitioner to overcome the mandatory bar of Section 37 of the Act and as such in view of the embargo imposed, I am not inclined to grant the relief of bail to the petitioner in the instant case. My view is strengthened by the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Ram Samujh and another, 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1522, Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai v. R. Paulsamy, 2001 SCC (Cri) 648, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad, 2001(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Cri) 219 and Babua alias Tazmul Hossain v. State of Orissa, 2001(1) RCR(Cri) 720. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.