IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 09.10.2025 Deepak @ Deep ........Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

107 8.7.2025 Machhiwara, Khanna, 21, 27(a), and Section 29, 61, District Ludhiana 85 (added later on)

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 20 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. On 8^th July 2025, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 06 grams of heroin from the petitioner’s possession and 09 grams of heroin and Rs. 97,000/- as drug money from the possession of the co-accused Jashanpreet Singh. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985 and BNSS, 2023.

4. Considering the quantity of the drug involved, this Court did not insist upon the written response from the State. The State’s Counsel, however, referred to the contentions made by the Public Prosecutor before the Court of Judge, Special Court at the time of rejection of the anticipatory bail.

5. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial custody. He submits that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their 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 reply.

REASONING:

8. As per the copy of FIR, the contraband recovered from the petitioner is 6 grams of heroin.

9. Dealing in 6 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) &

2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, Notification No. & dated 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 11/14/1985

821 (E)