JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Crl. Misc. No.68336 of 2012 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No.M-35923 of 2012 1. Madan Lal @ Madam Lal @ Maddi, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 114 dated 20.09.2012 at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural, Amritsar, for an offence punishable under sections 21,22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in a previous case registered by SHO Police Station Gharinda, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. According to him, despite the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in that case, the SHO concerned had arrested him in the case and on account of the same, the petitioner filed a contempt petition against him in this court and departmental proceedings were also got initiated against him. According to him, infuriated by this action on the part of the petitioner, the SHO falsely recorded a secret information to the effect that Satinder Singh, Rinku alias Sahbi and Madan Lal alias Maddi do the business of selling heroin in different villages on their motorcycle by making small packets of the same. He has further submitted that ambush was laid over the drain bridge and Satwinder Singh fell in the net of the police while Rinku alias Sahbi who was also there on the motorcycle succeeded in escaping. According to him, Madan Lal was nowhere there. He has further submitted that the police has not found any material against the petitioner and out of spite, this false case has been registered just to harm the petitioner. He has further submitted that there is no previous history of involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that there has been a secret information about the involvement of the petitioner in the sale of heroin. He did not dispute the fact that in the previous case despite an order of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, he was arrested by the SHO of the police station and that the petitioner had been instrumental in getting departmental proceedings initiated against him and had also filed a contempt petition against him in this court. He did not dispute the fact that in the previous case despite an order of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, he was arrested by the SHO of the police station and that the petitioner had been instrumental in getting departmental proceedings initiated against him and had also filed a contempt petition against him in this court. He has, however, submitted that this alone is not a sufficient ground to hold that the SHO has tried to falsely implicate the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel has admitted that the police has raided the house of the petitioner thrice and that he could not be found there. Though, the petitioner was keeping out of the way of the police during those raids, yet the police must have inspected the premises to find out any evidence of his involvement in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Nothing is said to have been found in those raids. It is very easy for a police official to record the name of any person with regard to information received from secret informer. 5. Looking to the past history of relations between the petitioner and the SHO as also the fact that during three raids at the house of the petitioner, no evidence of his involvement in any such material is found, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petition is consequently allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 sub clause 2 (i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ---------0.B.S.0------------