The court ruled that extended custody and non-commercial nature of drug charges justified bail despite rigid conditions of the NDPS Act.

220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54703-2025 Date of decision: October 01, 2025 Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

*****

SSUUMMEEEETT GGOOEELL,, JJ.. ((OORRAALL))

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0049 dated 23.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21 (b), 27(a) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Bhaini Mian Khan, District Gurdaspur.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act, involving alleged recovery of 5.73 grams of Heroin and `2,500/-, i.e., the alleged sale proceeds of the said contraband, from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution version, available at this stage, suffers from inherent defects as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with. Learned counsel has further iterated that the contraband is non-commercial in nature and it is only on account of alleged recovery of drug money of `2,500/- that the police has sought to invoke provisions of Section 27 -A of the NDPS Act, so as to debar the petitioner from securing bail as rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 30.09.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 23.06.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. The contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is essentially of a non-commercial quantity. The only basis on which the police claim that the sum of `2,500/- recovered from the petitioner constitutes drug money is the confessional statement of the accused. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

7. As per custody certificate dated 30.09.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 06 days. In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. In the factual milieu of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that