The main legal point established in the judgment is the judicious consideration of bail petitions for accused with a criminal history and the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent further criminal activities.

Headnote:
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Sections 21, 23, 29, 61/85 of NDPS Act - The court discussed the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly the definitions of commercial quantity and small quantity, and the implications of the quantity of contraband on bail conditions. The court also emphasized the need for judicious consideration of bail petitions for accused with a criminal history and the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent further criminal activities.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 CrPC for violating provisions of the NDPS Act by possessing 100 grams of heroin. The petitioner argued that the quantity of contraband was less than commercial, and therefore, the rigours of S. 37 of NDPS Act did not apply.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the quantity of contraband, the petitioner's criminal history, and the need to prevent further criminal activities. It allowed the bail application, imposing elaborate and stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner's compliance with the law and prevent any influence on the investigation or tampering with evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the quantity of contraband, the petitioner's criminal history, and the need to prevent further criminal activities while granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the NDPS Act provisions related to the quantity of contraband, the judicious consideration of bail petitions for accused with a criminal history, and the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent further criminal activities.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application, subject to elaborate and stringent conditions, to ensure the petitioner's compliance with the law and prevent any influence on the investigation or tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
04	10.01.2021	Cantt Ferozepur, Distt. Ferozepur	21, 23, 29,61/85 of NDPS Act

1. The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of possessing 100 grams of heroin, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail on the ground that the quantity of contraband is less than commercial and rigours of S. 37 of NDPS Act do not apply.

2. In paragraph 16 of the bail application, the accused declares the criminal antecedents, which have been mentioned in Annexure P-6, the order of rejection of bail.

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offences	Police Station
1	122	03.10.2021	21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act	Special Task Force Phase-4, Mohali

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. While opposing the bail, the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

REASONING:

5. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

6. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

7. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is not commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.

Substance Name	Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack
Quantity detained (in Grams)	100
Quantity type	Intermediate
Drug Quantity in %	40.00%

Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985
Notification No
dated
Sr. No.	56
Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)	Heroin
Other non-proprietary name	******
Chemical Name	Diacetylmorphine
Small Quantity (in gm.)	5
Commercial Quantity (in gm.)	250

8. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate