JUDGMENT : Suvir Sehgal, J. 1. This is the 1st petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 40 02.03.2023 GRP, District Ludhiana 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 2. Version of the prosecution is that FIR has been registered when on suspicion, 04 adults were stopped and searched at one of the railway platforms of Ludhiana and were found to be carrying 01 Kg. opium each. The four individuals i.e. 02 males and 02 females identified themselves as Damodar Kumar Rana (present petitioners), Tiken Ganju, Chandu Devi and Ramiya Devi. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that separate recoveries have been made from all the 04 accused and the recovery individually made is non-commercial. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 7 SCC 550 as well as judgment dated 11.01.2021 passed by this Court in CRM-M-33684-2020 titled as Amit Dhanak Vs. State of Haryana. He asserts that the petitioner, who has a clean past and is in custody since 06.03.2023, deserves to be enlarged on bail as the trial is likely to take time to conclude. 4. Per contra, State counsel upon instructions from SI Birbal, has opposed the petition and has urged that in view of the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, petitioner cannot be released on bail. As per his instructions, charge has been framed on 29.05.2023, but out of 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions. 6. It has been held in Amar Singh's case (Supra) that recovery effected from the accused cannot be clubbed till the time it is not established that there was some complicity or conspiracy between them. This aspect will be a subject matter of debate before the Trial Court. When considered individually, the recovery of prohibited substance effected from the petitioner falls within the ambit of intermediate quantity as per the notification under the NDPS Act. Noticing the clean antecedents of the petitioner, the length of custody of almost 06 months and the nascent stage of the trial, this Court has no hesitation in acceding to the prayer made in the petition. 7. Noticing the clean antecedents of the petitioner, the length of custody of almost 06 months and the nascent stage of the trial, this Court has no hesitation in acceding to the prayer made in the petition. 7. Without adverting to the merits or de-merits of the arguments addressed, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.