IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.01.2025 Pronounced on: 24.01.2025 Sandeep alias Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

0276 14.10.2024 Ding, District Sirsa 15-B/61/85 of NDPS Act

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. As per paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1 111 - 15 of NDPS Act Ding, District Sirsa

2 291 - 279, 336 IPC and Sirsa Sadar, District Sirsa

15(b) of NDPS Act

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On Oct 14, 2024, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 3.440 kgs of poppy husk from the possession of a co-accused named Ajay Kumar. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023.

4. During custodial interrogation, the main accused, Ajay Kumar, confessed before the Police officer that they had purchased the drugs from the petitioner. Based on such confession before the police, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Apprehending arrest, he filed for anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which denied him bail. Feeling aggrieved, he has invoked the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 BNSS, 2023.

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 their family.

6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

“8. That as such according to the facts and investigation conducted so far, the petitioner has sold/supplied total 5 kg poppy husk and he has earned Rs.10,000/- out of sale of 5 KG. Thereafter recovery of 3 kg 440 gms, poppy husk was effected by the police from conscious possession of accused Ajay. Said Ajay has specifically told the name of the petitioner as supplier of the recovered contraband (poppy husk).”

8. Dealing in 3.440 kg of poppy husk is a punishable offense under the NDPS Act in the following terms:

Substance Name Poppy straw Quantity detained 3.44 Kg Quantity type Intermediate Drug Quantity in % to upper limit

6.88%

of Intermediate Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No S.O.1055(E) dated 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 110 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Poppy straw (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name ******

Small Quantity 1000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 1 Kg)

Commercial Quantity 50000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 50 Kg)

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

NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No S.15 & S.2(xviii) NDPS Act, S.O.821(E)

dated 11/14/1985 Sr. No. S.2(xviii)

9. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.

10. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All sections in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated i