IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 Mandeep Singh @ Deepi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

266 26.08.2023 Special Task Force, Phase-4, 21, 21-C, 29 of NDPS Act Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab

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. As per paragraph 15 of the bail application and as per para 8 E of the status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On

26.08.2023, based on secret information, the Police seized 360 grams of heroin from co- accused Shinderpal @ Shindi’s possession. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. During the custodial interrogation of the co-accused Shinderpal @ Shindi, he disclosed that he procured the said heroin from the petitioner; based on the disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an accused by incorporating S. 29 of the NDPS Act.

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 8A of the status report, the name of the contraband is heroin, and its weight is 360 grams.

9. Dealing in Heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

0

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. It would be appropriate to refer to the evidence collected against the petition, which is taken from the statu