The stringent conditions of Section 37 under the NDPS Act require that an accused must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty for bail eligibility, particularly concerning commercial quantities.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The present petition, is the first attempt before this Court by the petitioner, under Section 483 of BNSS , 2023 for grant of regular bail in FIR No.21 dated 15.04.2025 registered under Section 21 -C of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) and under Sections 27 -A and 29 of NDPS Act (added later on) at Police Station Behrampur, District Gurdaspur.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that on 15.04.2025, Sub Inspector Gurmukh Singh; accompanied by ASI Jagir Chand, ASI Satnam Singh and Manjit Singh, SRC Daljit Singh and PHG Naresh Kumar; was conducting anti-drone patrolling in the government vehicle alongwith standard investigative equipment near the villages of Toor and Mummy Chack Ranga etc and were heading towards the Ravi river. While searching the riverbank, the police patrolling team observed two young men loitering suspiciously. On noticing the police, one of them later identified as Sahil Kumar son of Mukesh Kumar of Toor village, discarded a polythene bag into nearby bushes and attempted to retreat. Both the individuals were intercepted and upon inquiry, the second man identified himself as Rajan Kumar alias Gama, son of Kewal Krishan, also a resident of Toor village. After formally explaining their legal rights, both the suspects consented to an on the spot search. The discarded bag was inspected which contain heroin weighing 255 grams (including packaging). The contraband was resealed in the same polythene and placed in a plastic box and was subsequently entrusted to ASI Satnam Singh. The heroin, together with polythene bag, was seized via a formal recovery memo. Both the accused were booked under Sections 21 (c)/61/85 of NDPS Act for possession of 255 grams of heroin. ASI Manjit Singh was dispatched with the ruqa to register the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, iterating the cause of the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the only material available with the prosecution against the petitioner is a disclosure statement made by the co-accused – Sahil Kumar. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been in custody in other FIR(s) for the last 2/3 years and no mobile phone has been recovered from him in the jail. Learned counsel has, thus, submitted that there is no corroborative material against the petitioner other than the said disclosure statement made by co-accused Sahil Kumar which statement cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. On strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for.

4. On the contrary, learned State counsel has strenuously opposed the plea for grant of regular bail by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner is accused of being involved in a case pertaining to recovery of 255 grams of heroin and Rs.4,70,000/- of drug money. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the present case involves commercial quantity of contraband as envisaged in NDPS Act and, thus, the plea of the petitioner is to be considered in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘ ’). Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate dated 09.07.2025 to argue that the there are 04 other FIR(s) against the petitioner under the NDPS Act apart from 01 other FIR under the Prisons Act. On the strength of these submissions, learned State counsel has sought for dismissal of the petition in hand.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and hav