JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- Baljit Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.79 dated 12.7.2010 at Police Station Amargarh, District Sangrur for an offence punishable under sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) and section 483 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It is a case where three persons, namely, Partap Singh alias Kala, Satpal Singh alias Gagu and Satnam Singh were apprehended carrying poppy husk in a vehicle Tavera make bearing registration No. PB-11AN-2818 carrying fake number plate showing its registration No.as HR-24C-7064. The petitioner is owner of this vehicle and he is sought to be made liable for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was in custody in some other case since May 5, 2010. According to him, he was in custody in that case even on 12.7.2010, the date when his Tavera was intercepted in which the above named three persons were found carrying poppy husk. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been arrested in this case on 4.10.2010. He has further submitted that in his absence, his vehicle was misused by the three persons for the purpose of carrying the contraband item. He has further submitted that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner had permitted the use of his vehicle for the commission of an offence under the Act. The use of his vehicle by the above named persons was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is in custody for the last one and a half years. 4. Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the earlier case in which the petitioner was in custody is also under the Act. According to him, so far he has been booked in four cases and looking to the said fact, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail. 5. It is a fact on the record that on 5.5.2010, the petitioner was arrested in an earlier case. It is also a fact that on 12.7.2010 when the petitioner’s Tavera was intercepted carrying three persons with poppy husk, he was in custody in that case. 5. It is a fact on the record that on 5.5.2010, the petitioner was arrested in an earlier case. It is also a fact that on 12.7.2010 when the petitioner’s Tavera was intercepted carrying three persons with poppy husk, he was in custody in that case. The vehicle definitely belonged to the petitioner but by the mere fact that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the said vehicle was being used by Satpal Singh and others with the consent and knowledge of the petitioner. In my opinion, this question has to be decided by the court after taking the evidence of the prosecution. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner remained in custody from 5.5.2010 till the date of his arrest in this case, i.e. 4.10.2010, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. The petition is, consequently, allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. ----------------------