Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4534
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J
Bagga Singh @ Buggar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
FIR No. 302 | SLP (Crl) 4169-2023 | CRM-18469-2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anmol Puri
For the Respondents: Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab
Prolonged pre-trial custody may justify bail, requiring strict conditionality to ensure compliance with laws and public safety.
Headnote:This decision involves an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pertaining to narcotic-related charges. The petitioner argues prolonged pre-trial incarceration infringes his constitutional rights, leading to a conditional freedom ruling, amidst discussions on statutory bail provisions and precedents from higher courts. The court ultimately grants bail with stringent conditions to ensure public safety and prevent recidivism.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for bail under section 483, discussing antecedents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. counsel arguments for prolonged custody justification for bail. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. discussion of legal criteria for bail under ndps act. (Para 8 , 9 , 13) |
| 4. conditional bail justification based on precedents. (Para 10 , 12 , 16) |
| 5. final bail conditions and decision to grant. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29) |
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Section |
| 30 | 26.02.2024 | Samana, Distt. Patiala | 22 of NDPS Act |
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court second time under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [ BNSS ], seeking regular bail.
2. As per paragraph 14 of the bail application and 15 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
| Sr. No. | FIR No. | Dated | Offenses | Police Station |
| 1. | 95 | 29.06.201 | 22 of NDPS Act | Sadar Samana, Distt. Patiala |
| 2. | 198 | 11.09.2019 | 21 of NDPS Act | Tripuri, Distt. Patiala |
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 26.02.2024, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 1010 tablets containing tramadol from the petitioner’s possession. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985 , and CrPC, 1973.
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 his family.
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 Special Judge or Sessions 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 12A of the status report, the name of the contraband is Tramadol and its weight is 290.88 grams.
9. Dealing in 290.88 grams of tramadol in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985 , constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
| Substance Name | Tramadol |
| Quantity detained | 290.88 Gram |
| Punishable U/s | S.22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 |
| Quantity type | Commercial |
| Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate | 116.35% |
| Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 | |
| Notification No. & dated S.O.1762(E) 4/26/2018 | |
| Sr. No. | 238 ZH |
| Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) | Tramadol |
| Other non-proprietary name | ****** |
| Chemical Name | ****** |
| Small Quantity | < 5 Gram |
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. As per the custody certificate dated 01.09.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of 01 year, 06 months and 04 days.
12. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha , SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July
