Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This Order will dispose of two petitions being Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 1096-M of 2006 and 63739-M of 2005, which relate to FIR No. 134 dated 8.8.2005 registered under Sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `NDPS Act) with Police Station, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur. Both the petitions have been filed by Surjit Singh son of Mehar Singh (Petitioner No. 1) and Paramjit Singh son of S. Sardara Singh (Petitioner No. 2). 2. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1096-M of 2006 has been filed seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. whereas Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63739-M of 2005 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directions to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur and Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur to put a report before the competent Court in view of the investigation conducted by Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) whereby, the petitioners have been found innocent and to make application for discharge of the petitioners. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for withdrawal of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63739-M of 2005. 4. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63739-M of 2005 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all these pleas before the Trial Court, as also, if so advised to seek discharge on the basis of the investigation/inquiry reports. 5. Since the detailed reply and documents have been filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63739-M of 2005, therefore, it is pleaded that the documents may be taken into account while dealing with the case Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1096-M of 2006. 6. In view of the joint prayer, it is directed that the reply and documents filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63739-M of 2005 be also placed on the file of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1096-M of 2006. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that on 8.8.2005, the FIR was registered vide Annexure P-1 which reflects that a secret information has been received indicating the involvement of the petitioners alongwith Amrik Singh, Darshan Singh sons of Niranjan Singh and Gurjant Singh @ Janta son of Bachitar Singh in dealing with heavy quantity of poppy husk. This information, as per document Annexure P-1, was entered in Daily Diary Report at 10.00 P.M in Police Station, Bhawanigarh. 8. This information, as per document Annexure P-1, was entered in Daily Diary Report at 10.00 P.M in Police Station, Bhawanigarh. 8. On 9.8.2005 at 11.30 AM, it is shown that a jeep driven by Amrik Singh in which the petitioners and Darshan Singh were traveling, was carrying 13 bags. On suspicion, the bags were examined and it was found that 12 bags contained 35 Kgs each and 1 bag contained 15 Kgs. of poppy husk. 9. Apprehending that fair investigation is not being conducted and the petitioners have been falsely implicated, an application was made by Ranbir Singh son of Surjit Singh (Petitioner No. 1) on 7.9.2005 to the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab, Chandigarh, asking for investigation to be conducted from an Officer outside the district of Sangrur. The record shows that the Additional Director General of Police (Crime) namely Shri Anil Kaushik, IPS, marked the investigation to Shri R.S. Bhullar, Superintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh. After investigation, the report was submitted which is dated 13.10.2005. The report is appended with the petition as Annexure P-6 which runs into as many as 68 pages. On having examined the report submitted by Shri R.S. Bhullar, Shri Anil Kaushik, Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab Chandigarh, approved the findings and referred the matter to the Director General of Police, Punjab, who approved the findings and therefore, directions were issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur vide Memo dated 2.11.2005 to present challan only against Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh, and seek the discharge of the petitioners. Since lacuna was found in the investigation earlier conducted by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhawanigarh, his transfer was recommended and he was proceeded against. 10. Reference to Memo dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P-2) addressed by the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab, Chandigarh, to Ranbir Singh son of Surjit Singh is relevant. In Para 2 thereof, the following has been stated :- "During the course of inquiry it has been noticed that Surjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh, Jat and Paramjit Singh s/o Sardara Singh are innocent in this case and nothing objectionable article has been recovered from Gurjant Singh s/o Bachittar Singh, only the informer has given the information. S.S.P. Sangrur has been directed to discharge them from the above said Case No. 134 dated 8.8.05 under Sections 25/61/85 and 15/61/85 of NDPS Act, Police Station Bhawanigarh. S.S.P. Sangrur has been directed to discharge them from the above said Case No. 134 dated 8.8.05 under Sections 25/61/85 and 15/61/85 of NDPS Act, Police Station Bhawanigarh. S.S.P. Sangrur has also been directed to produce Challan of the remaining accused Darshan Singh s/o Niranjan Singh and Amrik Singh s/o Niranjan Singh who are real accused, in the case." 11. An affidavit has been filed in this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63739-M of 2005 by Shri Anil Kaushik, IPS, Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab, Chandigarh, sworn on 31.11.2005, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-3 with this petition, wherein the following has been stated :- "1. That the deponent is incharge of Crime Wing of Criminal and Investigation Department. Under Section 36 CRPC read with Rule 21.28 (1) of Punjab Police Rules 1934 the deponent is authorized to take over the control of any particular investigation of a case registered at any Police Station in the State of Punjab. 2. That Ranvir Singh son of one of the accused of FIR No. 134 dated 8.8.05 under section 25/61/85 NDPS Act PS Bhawanigarh made a petition before the ADGP Crime Punjab that his father Surjit Singh and one Gurjant Singh had been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of one Sharanjit Singh, Sarpanch of village Jogipur Tehsil and distt. Patiala and Sukjit Singh s/o Bhag Singh r/o Rathian distt. Patiala. That petition was entrusted to Sh. R.S. Bhullar SP Crime for enquiry. During enquiry, it was found that Sharanjit Singh Sarpanch got executed an agreement to purchase 16 acres of land of Jaswinder Kaur w/o Rupinder Singh and her son Gupreet Singh in the name of Sukhit Singh s/o Bhag Singh s/o Rathian @ 1,75000 Rs./acre. A sum of Rs. 6 lacs was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed and registered by 16.5.05. This deal was struck through Surjit Singh accused and Paramjit Singh accused who are property dealers at Patiala. Sukhjit Singh was not able to arrange the remaining sale consideration as a result of which he and Sharanjit Singh Sarpanch started putting pressure upon Surjit Singh and Paramjit Singh accused to get the date of execution of sale deed extended, but it could not happen. Sukhjit Singh was not able to arrange the remaining sale consideration as a result of which he and Sharanjit Singh Sarpanch started putting pressure upon Surjit Singh and Paramjit Singh accused to get the date of execution of sale deed extended, but it could not happen. Sharanjit Singh Sarpanch in connivance with SI SHO Tejinder Singh got Surjit Singh and Paramjit Singh implicated in this case after picking them from their houses situated in Patiala City. Documentary evidence showed that Sharanjit Singh Sarpanch on 8.9.05, the date of registration of this case made calls on the cell phone of SHO Tejinger Singh bearing No. 9815372429 from his mobile No. 9855055517. Regarding false implication, a son of Surjit Singh accused gave telegrams to different authorities including PSHRC on which Patiala Police submitted a report that Surjit Singh was taken away from his house situated in Patiala City by 5, 6 persons in a Gypsy on the evening of 8.8.05. Private witness Sh. Harinder Singh of alleged recovery made a statement before the enquiry officer that he signed the recovery memo in the police station on the direction of SHO Tejinder Singh. Due to above reasons apart from the other circumstances, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that accused Surjit Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurjant Singh were falsely implicated in this case in which the recovery was infact made from Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh accused both residents of Dirba. It is not out of place to mention that Gurjant Singh is not stated to be present in the jeep from which alleged recovery was made. 3. That the enquiry report was duly examined approved by the deponent and approved by the DGP, Punjab and direction was accordingly issued to SSP Sangrur that challan may be filed against Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh with further direction to get Paramjit Singh and Surjit Singh discharged from the case." 12. Subsequently, however, the Senior Superintendent of police, Sangrur, did not file any application for discharge, rather vide communication dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure R-1), made a recommendation that the matter should be re-investigated. Resultantly, the case was marked for inquiry to Shri S.M. Sharma, Inspector General of Police, Zone Patiala, who, having conducted the inquiry found the petitioner to be guilty vide inquiry report Annexure R-2. 13. Resultantly, the case was marked for inquiry to Shri S.M. Sharma, Inspector General of Police, Zone Patiala, who, having conducted the inquiry found the petitioner to be guilty vide inquiry report Annexure R-2. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since detailed inquiry has been conducted by an Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police namely Shri R.S. Bhullar, the petitioners are entitled to the concession as prayed for. 14. The findings recorded by Shri R.S. Bhullar in the detailed inquiry have not only been endorsed by Shri Anil Kaushik, Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab, Chandigarh, as stand established from the portions reproduced above, but have also been endorsed by the Director General of Police, Punjab. It is pleaded that the report of inquiry, subsequently conducted by Shri S.M. Sharma, vide which the petitioners have been found guilty, is not a part of the challan although the inquiry report reflects that as many as 50 witnesses have been examined. Statements of the witnesses were not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, no reliance can be placed on these statements so as to oppose the prayer for bail. 15. Perusal of the Memo vide which, re-investigation was directed, shows that all what has been taken into consideration is the antecedents of the petitioners. Rather, in a portion of the Memo, lacuna is reflected to the effect that though site plan is on the record yet it is not mentioned in the Daily Diary. No reference to the inquiry (Annexure P-6) conducted by Shri R.S. Bhullar, Superintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh has been made. 16. Be that as it may, the gist of arguments is that because the recommendation to the effect that the petitioners were innocent, was approved upto the level of Director General of Police, the petitioners are entitled to concession of bail. 17. I have gone through the record and have considered the arguments on behalf of both the sides. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent State, on instructions from Shri Gursharan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, has admitted the fact that the inquiry conducted by Shri S.M. Sharma, infact, is not a part of the challan papers. It has further been admitted that the statements recorded during inquiry by Shri S.M. Sharma, were not recorded under the provision of Section 161 Cr.P.C. although the inquiry is before presentation of challan. It has further been admitted that the statements recorded during inquiry by Shri S.M. Sharma, were not recorded under the provision of Section 161 Cr.P.C. although the inquiry is before presentation of challan. It transpires that the basis of challan remained the investigation initially conducted at the level of the Station House Officer. Even the inquiry report of Shri R.S. Bhullar, Superintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh, Annexure P-6, has not been appended with the challan. 19. Without going into any further merits of the case and in view of the report of Shri R.S. Bhullar, Superintendent of Police (Crime), Chandigarh which was duly endorsed by Shri Anil Kaushik, Additional Director General of Police (Crime) and upto the Director General of Police, one opinion of the investigating agency of innocence has been recorded in favour of the petitioners. The trial is at initial stage and in the face of such conceded position, further detention of the petitioners is not warranted although this is a case under the NDPS Act. It is moot point which would ultimately be examined by the Trial Court as to whether the inquiry, investigation conducted by Shri R.S. Bhullar, Superintendent of police (Crime), Chandigarh, as endorsed by Shri Anil Kaushik , Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab, Chandigarh, and upto the Director General of Police, Punjab or subsequent inquiry conducted by Shri S.M. Sharma, Inspector General of Police, Zone Patiala, is reliable. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of Trial Court. Heavy surety. It is further directed that the petitioners shall not leave District Sangrur while trial is pending and shall surrender their passports before the Trial Court. Anything observed hereinabove is only for consideration of the application for bail and is not to be construed as an opinion on the reliability of the investigation or the facts.