IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 02.02.2026 Pronounced on : 13.02.2026 Sandeep Singh @Sukh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.79 dated 16.10.2025 under Sections 18-C and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ only, Police Station Patara, District Jalandhar (Rural). The abovementioned FIR came into being when a police party headed by ‘SI Nirmal Singh’, who was leading a team of police officials deputed for patrolling duty, a car on the basis of suspicion was intercepted, and apprehended the present petitioner and his co-accused, namely Sandeep Singh @Sukh. It has been alleged that from the possession of both the persons, 04 kg of opium along with some currency notes were recovered.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned recovery of contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR and arrest of accused were undertaken and further investigation taken up.

3. Arguments addressed on behalf of all the parties have been heard.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that any recovery from the possession of petitioner had not taken place. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of enquiry and investigation, the relevant rules/instructions were not followed by the Investigating Agency, and therefore, the case set-out by the prosecution is bound to fail.

6. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that as per prosecution case, there was recovery of 02 kg opium from the possession of petitioner and 02 kg opium from the possession of co-accused. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, since recovery of contraband has taken place from both the accused separately, the recovery from both the accused cannot be clubbed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of above the recovery from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of ‘non-commercial quantity’.

7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case the petitioner and his co-accused were travelling in one car and from the abovementioned car, 04 kg of opium was recovered, which comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. As per learned State Counsel, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the settled principles of law, as the law prohibits the accused from segregation of recovery. The learned State Counsel has contended that the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section- 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner.

8 The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, the total custody period of petitioner is three months only. As per story set-out by the prosecution, from the car, wherein the petitioner and co-accused were travelling, 04 kg of opium was recovered and the abovementioned quantity of contraband comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’.

10. For the sake of arguments, even if the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted that the petitioner can be held responsible for recovery of 02 kg opium only, even then the quantity of abovementioned contraband is very close to the lower l