Judgment Nawab Singh, J. 1. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Avtar Singh alias Tara, petitioner in case registered against him vide First Information Report No. 133 dated August 27, 2005, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") at Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa. 2. The story of the prosecution is that on August 27, 2005 Bhupinder Singh, Station House Officer along with other Police officials was present at Sirsa crossing T. Point Sardulgarh in connection with general crime checking. He received secret information that accused-petitioner along with his co-accused Baldev Singh brought opium in truck No. PCL-9967 and would sell the same at Truck Union, Sardulgarh. Information was sent to the Police Station Sardulgarh. Nakabandi was picketed on the gate of Truck Union, Sardulgarh. Deputy Superintendent of Police also reached the spot and joined the Police party headed by Bhupender Singh. Surjit Singh came and informed that Petitioner and Baldev Singh had brought the truck No. PCL-9967 and had parked the same under a Kikar tree behind the truck union. The police reached the spot and found the truck parked there. The petitioner and his co-accused were not found nearby the truck. Truck was subjected to search. It was found that in the tool-box under the rear seat, opium wrapped in a polythene paper was kept in a plastic bag. On weighment it was found to be 12 Kgs. The opium was taken into possession. The entire proceedings were attested by the DSP. Search for the accused was made. Both of them were apprehended near the bridge on Sadhuwala, Sardulgarh Road on the same day. Accordingly, they were arrested. 3. The bail has been sought on the grounds-(I) that the accused-petitioner was not arrested on the spot, so, it could not be said that he was carrying opium in the truck apprehended by the Police; (2) that one Harpal Singh Sub Inspector, who was present with the Police party headed by Bhupender Singh, is co-brother of one Jarnail Singh who is an accused in case FIR No.63 dated May 14, 2003, registered at Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa, under Section 307 IPC etc. and in that case son of the petitioner has been cited as a witness of the occurrence. and in that case son of the petitioner has been cited as a witness of the occurrence. Jarnail Singh and his co-brother Harpal Singh were pressurising the son of the petitioner not to depose against Jarnail Singh to which he did not agree and ultimately to take the revenge the present case was foisted upon the petitioner; (3) that the sample of 10 grams was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab, Chandigarh and it was found that quantity of morphine was 1.0% which proves that actual weight of the opium seized was not 12 Kgs, it was only 120 grams; and (4) that Surjeet Singh independent witness is a stock witness and as such no reliance should be placed on his testimony. To support the submission advanced, the learned counsel ha relied upon Ansar Ahmed v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 393. 4. Against this, the learned State counsel has strenuously urged that it cannot be said that the accused was not apprehended on the spot because prior to the seizure of the truck, the Station House Officer had received the information that the petitioner and his co-accused Baldev Singh were coming in truck No. PCL-9967 carrying huge quantity of opium and the information of receipt of information mentioning the name of the petitioner and his co- accused and the truck was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which Daily Diary Report was registered. If the case, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was to be foisted upon the petitioner, in that eventuality question of recording of DDR before actual apprehension of the truck would not have arisen. It was further urged by the learned State counsel that accused has a criminal background and facing number of criminal trials viz. (1) FIR No. 22 dated February 01, 1992, under Sections 279/336 IPC, P.S. Wadha Gurdha (Haryana), (2) FIR No.56 dated January 17, 1992 under Sections 326/324/34 IPC, P.S. Sardulgarh, (3) FIR No.51 dated April 30, 2001, under Section 61 Excise Act, P.S. Sardulgarh and (4) FIR No. 72 dated April 21, 2005 under Section 61 of Excise Act, Police Station, Sardulgarh. Lastly it was prayed that accused-petitioner should not be allowed bail. 5. Lastly it was prayed that accused-petitioner should not be allowed bail. 5. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel and has perused the record over the file. 6. The most important point in this bail application to adjudicate is as to whether opium seized was 12 Kgs or 1.20 Kgs. as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. To adjudicate the same, the definition of opium as defined in Section 2 (xv) of the NDPS Act, has to be adverted to and opium means : "(a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and (b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 percent of morphine." 7. Courts of law are creations of statute and the relevant provision of the Act. defining a substance is not to be overlooked. Nothing is to be added or subtracted from the definition unless there is some ambiguity that needs judicial interpretation. 8. What was seized from the accused in this case was 12 Kgs of opium. The sample, on chemical examination, was found to contain 1.0% of morphine. It means that the substance recovered contained morphine, the essential element of opium and some neutral substance but the percentage of morphine was much in excess of 0.2%. If the percentage of the opium was 0.2% or less, the argument could prevail but the percentage being 1.0%, the substance essentially and per definition was `opium. In this view of the matter the authority Ansar Ahmedss case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application. That case related to possession of `Heroin a derivative and further processed substance, while `opium was recovered in the present case. 9. If the authority (supra) was to be applied to all cases, it would lead to assessing the total quantity of `opium in its pure form and the approach would become fallacious because the substance would be `opium even if it contains some neutral material when the percentage of `opium present is more than 0.2%. To look for presence of pare morphine will only run counter to the definition. 10. As regards the other contention. To look for presence of pare morphine will only run counter to the definition. 10. As regards the other contention. of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would not be justifiable to discuss the same at this stage as it may prejudice the case of either party. In a recent judgment Kumari Suman Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2007(1) Law Herald (SC) 808 : [2607(3) All India Criminal LR (S.C.) 258], the Honble Supreme Court has held that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. It suffices to say that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant concession of bail to the petitioner. 11. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. 12. However, it is recorded for the sake of clarity that observations made herein shall have no bearing on the merit of the case before the trial Court.