IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 Satpal Singh @ Satta ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

65 03.05.2025 Badhni Kalan, 22, 27-B, 29 of NDPS Act District Moga and 111(2B) of BNS

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Per paragraph 14 of the bail application and paragraph 8(G) of status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

3. Vide order dated 22.07.2025, the petitioner was granted interim protection and the said order is continuing till date.

4. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 03.05.2025, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 120 loose tablets of white colour and drug money of Rs.900/- from possession of co-accused. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023.

5. During custodial interrogation, the main accused, Sukhdev Singh, confessed before the Police officer that he had purchased the drugs from the petitioner. Based on such confession before the police, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Apprehending Jyoti Sharma arrest, he filed for anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which denied him bail.

2025.09.18 17:37 Feeling aggrieved, he has invoked the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 BNSS, 2023.

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

7. 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.

8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

9. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows:

“A. The name and total weight of the drug Tramadol Hydrochloride, average weight 316mg/tab, Total weight 37.92 grams.

C. The evidence on which the petitioner was arraigned as an accused; Petitioner has been nominated as accused in the present case, on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Sukhdev Singh, who was apprehended red handed and from his possession 120 loose tablets were recovered.

D. The evidence against the petitioner: Disclosure statement of accused Sukhdev Singh.

E. Role of the petitioner: As per disclosure statement of accused Sukhdev Singh.”

10. As per paragraph 7A of the status report, the name of the contraband is Tramadol and its weight is 37.92 grams.

11. Dealing in 37.92 gm of Tramadol in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Tramadol Quantity detained 37.92 Gram Jyoti Sharma

2025