JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.: - Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Dinesh Singh Dadhwal, son of Mela Singh, resident of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, ‘the NDPS Act’), in FIR No. 19, dated 19.4.2012, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, for retaining 200 gms. of heroin. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is neither involved nor required in any other case. He further submits that the prosecution cannot be allowed to count the weight of the heroin recovered from four different persons. He further submits that it is the conceded case of the prosecution that only 200 gms. heroin was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, which is a non-commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars from 19.4.2012. He further submits that there are fairly arguable points during the course of the trial including non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 SCC 550, and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan @ Nimma v. Inspector, Customs, Customs House, Punjab, [2011(6) Law Herald (SC) 4208 : 2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 3404] : 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831. 3. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the factual aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that 850 gms. of heroin was recovered from four persons sitting in a car, therefore, the contraband recovered from four persons should be taken as a whole and not in parts. 4. Heard. 5. It is admitted case of the prosecution that 200 gms. of heroin was recovered from the petitioner. In Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the quantity of the contraband carried by more than one accused could not be added to bring it within the meaning of commercial quantity. The fact that all the accused apprehended by the investigating agency, were having common intention has to be established during the course of the trial. The fact that all the accused apprehended by the investigating agency, were having common intention has to be established during the course of the trial. At this stage, the Court can presume that the petitioner was carrying 200 gms. of heroin only. 6. The petitioner, Dinesh Singh Dadhwal, is neither required nor involved in any other case. The co-accused has already been granted the similar concession. The ultimate decision of the trial would take sufficient long time. 7. Without commenting much on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner, Dinesh Singh Dadhwal, son of Mela Singh, resident of Village Fatehpur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing the bonds in the sum of ‘1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. He will also furnish an undertaking that during the pendency of the trial he shall not repeat the offence.