Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J
Jatinder Singh @ Sunny – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
FIR No. 89 | NDPS Act | SLP (Crl) No. 1228-2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Ms. Sandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan
For the Respondents: Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab
Bail granted under NDPS Act due to prolonged pre-trial custody, with conditions to ensure compliance and prevent re-offending.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 22(c) of NDPS Act - Bail application - Petitioner seeking bail based on prolonged pre-trial incarceration - The petitioner has encountered multiple charges under the NDPS Act and seeks to avoid irreversible injustice due to ongoing incarceration. (Paras 1-6, 12-16)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail in serious offenses - Conditions to be imposed must relate to preventing repeat offenses and ensuring a fair trial without unnecessary restrictions on personal liberties. Emphasis on balancing rights and safety needs. (Paras 10, 21-24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of 150 tablets containing Etizolam and has a history of similar offenses under the NDPS Act, with substantial pre-trial custody. (Paras 3-5, 11)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to bail based on the conditions provided due to the extended duration of incarceration, reflecting on the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 14-16)
Issues: The necessity of bail given the prolonged custody and the appropriateness of imposing stringent bail conditions to mitigate risks of reoffending. (Paras 10-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that while stringent conditions are necessary to ensure compliance, they must also respect the accused's rights and not impede the fair trial process. (Paras 21-22)
Result: Petition allowed in terms mentioned above.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks bail under specific legal provisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on continued pre-trial custody merits. (Para 4 , 5) |
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
89 04.08.2024 City Nakodar, 22(b) of NDPS Act (charge District Jalandhar framed u/s 22(c) of NDPS Act )
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 19 of the bail application and paragraph 11 of status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No.
FIR No.
Date
Offenses
Police Station
1.
97
25.09.2019
22 of NDPS Act
City Nakodar
2.
29
29.03.2020
21/29 of NDPS Act
City Nakodar
3.
139
30.11.2022
22 of NDPS Act
City Nakodar
4.
74
21.06.2024
22 of NDPS Act
City Nakodar
5.
31
28.03.2024
22(C) of NDPS Act
City Nakodar
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On
04.08.2024, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 150 tablets containing Etizolam from the petitioner’s possession. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act , 1985, and BNSS, 2023.
4. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.
5. 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.
Jyoti Sharma
2025.09.18 17:37
6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act , where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act , the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.
7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
REASONING:
8. As per paragraph 8 of the status report, the name of the contraband is Etizolam, and its weight is 15.45 grams.
9. Dealing in 15.45 grams of Etizolam in contravention of the NDPS Act , 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Substance Name
Etizolam
Quantity detained
15.45 Gram
Punishable U/s
S.22(c) of NDPS Act , 1985
Quantity type
Commercial
Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate
618.00%
Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date S.O. 1351 (E) dated 13.03.2019
Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act , 1985
Notification No. & dated S.O.1276(E) 3/23/2021
Sr. No.
238ZZC
Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)
Etizolam
Other non-proprietary name
******
Chemical Name
4-(2-Chlorophenyl)-2-ethyl-9-methyl-6H-
thieno[3,2-f][1,2,4]triazolo[4,3a] [1,4]diazepine
Small Quantity
< 0.05 Gram
Commercial Quantity
> 2.5 Gram
0
Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act , 1985
Notification No. & dated S.O.1275(E) 3/23/2021
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 set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act .
11. Per the custody certificate dated 31.08.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is
01 year and 26 days.
12. The prolonged in
