JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Jatinder Kumar @ Kala, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 198 dated 28.8.2011 at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the recovery of opium and charas has though been effected from the car driven by the petitioner, yet from the possession of his co-accused Sham Lal. According to him, the owner of the car was carrying the contraband material in the bag which was lying at his feet. He has submitted that the petitioner has been engaged as a driver by Sham Lal about 10 days back and he cannot be believed to have had the knowledge that his co-accused was carrying the opium and charas in such a heavy quantity with him. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to have been in conscious possession of the contraband. According to him, since no recovery had been effected from the petitioner, he is entitled to bail. He has placed reliance on a decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 281, where poppy husk had been recovered from three co-accused of Suresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar who was driving the jeep was not found carrying the poppy husk and was consequently allowed bail. 3. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail plea. According to him, it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that Sham Lal was carrying opium and charas in a heavy quantity. According to him, the petitioner cannot escape by saying that he was just a driver. 4. First of all, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had been working as a driver with Sham Lal for the last 10 days only. The quantity of opium and charas recovered is very heavy. Such a quantity of contraband cannot escape the notice of the driver of a car. 4. First of all, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had been working as a driver with Sham Lal for the last 10 days only. The quantity of opium and charas recovered is very heavy. Such a quantity of contraband cannot escape the notice of the driver of a car. As the contraband was carried in the car, it can be said that either the contraband was brought from the supplier or was being supplied and the place from where they started the journey, the people Sham Lal met during transaction would all give information to the driver about his co-accused carrying the contraband. 5. In Suresh Kumar’s case (supra), the co-accused of Suresh Kumar were individually carrying smaller quantity of poppy husk and this fact itself makes all the difference to the facts of the reported case vis-a-vis the case in hand. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------