The court underscored the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act, demanding substantial evidence to justify release for defendants in drug-related cases.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 14 of the bail application and para 7 of the status report dated 06.01.2025, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On June 28, 2023, based on prior information, the Police seized 1.524 kg of charas from a car in which the petitioner and two other persons were present. The petitioner was the car's driver, and the recovery was from under the driver's seat. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

4. The petitioner's counsel refers to the bail petition and seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Harpreet Singh, who was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.09.2023 in CRM-M-48644-2023. He also seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sunny Mittal, who had granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 09.05.2024 passed in CRM-M-891 of 2024.

5. However, it was explicitly argued by counsel for co-accused Harpreet Singh that he was not involved in any other case and recovery of charas was effected from Harpreet Singh, which is not in commercial quantity. Thus the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Harpreet Singh and arguments is misconceived.

6. A perusal of the bail order of Sunny Mittal reveals that he was arrested based on the disclosure statement of co-accused -Gurtej Singh @ Guri and recovery was not effected from him, thus, petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sunny Mittal.

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

8. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

9. Dealing in 1.524 kg of charas is a punishable offense under the NDPS Act in the following terms:

10. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

11. Section 37 [1] of the NDPS Act mandates under sub-section (1) (b) of section 37 that no person accused of an offense punishable for offenses involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. Thus, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the burden is on the pet