Bail under the NDPS Act is denied when the accused fails to comply with bail conditions and prima facie evidence indicates involvement in the illegal drug trade.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [ BNSS ], seeking quashing of the order dated 18.12.2024, vide which the Additional Sessions Judge Amritsar had cancelled the bail of the petitioner.

2. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 19.11.2023 based on chance recovery, the Police seized 600 intoxicant tablets Tramadol Hydrochloride from the possession of Dajit Singh @ Sonu (present petitioner) and 1380 intoxicant tablets tramadol hydrochloride and 200 intoxicant tablets tramadol hydrochloride from accused Japsimran Singh @ Jap. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

4. The petitioner's counsel 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.

5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

“That it is respectfully submitted that keeping in view the totality of the facts and submissions made hereinabove, it is evident that the present petitioner Daljit Singh @ Sonu and co-accused Japsimran Singh were involved in illegal business of selling intoxicant tablets and commercial quantity of 1380 intoxicant tablets were recovered from their conscious possession which were supplied to them by the co-accused Amritpal Singh. The present petitioner Daljit Singh @! Sonu was granted relief of interim bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar with a condition to surrender before the learned trial Court, if upon receipt of the report of FSL, the quantity of contraband recovered from them comes to be commercial quantity but the present petitioner Daljit Singh @ Sonu and co-accused Japsimran Singh have violated the condition and have misused the concession of interim bail granted to them and they have not surrendered before the learned trial Court despite te learned trial Court has issued notice, bailable and non-bailable warrants of arrest qua them which are in their well knowledge but they both have been absconding and concealing themselves in order to avoid their arrest. As the contraband recovered in this case from the present petitioner-accused Daljit Singh @ Sonu and co-accused is of commercial quantity; hence, the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable in this case. Hence, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the present petitioner -accused Daljit Singh @ Sonu for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 assed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.”

REASONING:

7. The petitioner was earlier granted bail not on merits of the case but on the grounds of non-availability of FSL report. The Special Judge while granting bail explicitly clarified that bail was subject to result of chemical examiner.

8. As per short reply, the report of the chemical examiner has been received, as per which, tramadol was found in the contents. The recovery from the petitioner is of 600 intoxicant tablets and prima facie the quantity of tramadol falls under the commercial quantity. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Further there is sufficient evidence implicating the petitioner which has been mentioned in the short reply dated 03.03.2025, which is extracted hereunder:-

“That during investigation, the accused Japsimran Singh @ Jap suffered disclosure statement that the above recovered intoxicant tablets were brought by his elder brother Amritpal Singh and transaction of money is also