JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.:- The petitioner seeks the concession of bail in a case, which was registered on the basis of a secret information to the effect that Naresh and Vijay were having 2200 intoxicating tablets. On arrest of Naresh and Vijay, they had named the petitioner, to be in possession of 1500 intoxicating tablets. The petitioner was arrested on the basis of statement of Naresh and Vijay. On the basis of statement made by the petitioner, in police custody, that he had got concealed 1500 intoxicating tablets near the berm of the choe, the recovery of envelope containing the tablets was effected. It appears that the following issues will be debatable during trial:- 1)Whether the petitioner could be involved and convicted in the case on the basis of statement of the co-accused. 2) Whether the petitioner could have been arrested on the basis of information of Naresh and Vijay. 3) Whether the statement made by the petitioner in custody, would be admissible. 4) Whether the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in the present case, could be said to have been fairly applied for effecting recovery. 2. The petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2013. It is not out of place to observe here that the petitioner might be indulging in the illegal activity of purchasing and selling the intoxicating tablets but in view of stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, the prosecution agency should have adopted a fair procedure of investigation. 3. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that before his release the petitioner will furnish an undertaking before the trial court that he will not indulge in the similar activities again and that in case of his indulging in similar activities, bail would be liable to be cancelled without notice. ---------0.B.S.0------------