JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Lakhwinder Singh alias Bittu and Narvinder Singh alias Navinder Singh alias Happy, the petitioners, by way of the above mentioned two petitions, have sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 29 dated 26.03.2012 at Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa, for an offence punishable under sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner Lakhwinder Singh has submitted that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the poppy husk. According to him, he was just travelling in the car which was driven by Narvinder Singh, who had succeeded in escaping. According to him, Narvinder Singh alias Navinder Singh would be taken to be in conscious possession of the contraband. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no consent memo was prepared nor any independent witness was associated in the proceedings and, therefore, there is no prima-facie case made out against the petitioner and he is entitled to bail. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner Narvinder Singh has submitted that the petitioner was not there in the car. According to him, Lakhwinder Singh had borrowed the car and he was himself driving the car and was involved in the matter. According to him, the petitioner was not involved in the matter. He has further submitted that respectable persons of village Heerke have made a statement showing non-involvement of the petitioner in the matter, which is Annexure P-2. He also referred to other such statements regarding his innocence. He has further submitted that at the spot Narvinder Singh is said to have been identified by Balbir Singh, ASI. He then referred me to the opening lines of the FIR where the names of the persons constituting the police party are mentioned and name of Balbir Singh,ASI is not there. According to him, this itself shows that the petitioner was not identified as the person running from the spot by Balbir Singh,ASI. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that Gurcharan Singh is the independent witness, who is yet to be examined at the trial. According to him, the recovery in this case is from the car and it is not a personal recovery and, therefore, consent memo under section 50 of the Act was not required to be prepared. 6. According to him, the recovery in this case is from the car and it is not a personal recovery and, therefore, consent memo under section 50 of the Act was not required to be prepared. 6. The submissions of learned counsel for Narvinder Singh alias Navinder Singh that Lakhwinder Singh alias Bittu borrowed the car and that he could not have been identified at the spot as Balbir Singh, ASI was not a member of the police party, have to be considered at the trial after taking evidence. Any comment thereon would be pre-mature. 7. Taking the case of the prosecution at its face value, it is a case where 60 kg. of poppy husk has been recovered from the two petitioners. The recovery is marginally above the commercial quantity and the petitioners are in custody for a considerable period. In these circumstances, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. ---------0.B.S.0------------