207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on: 27.01.2025 Kamaljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab Assisted by ASI Gurdeep Singh.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

154 26.06.2024 Model Town, 22 of NDPS Act (29 of District NDPS Act added later on)

Hoshiarpur

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail.

2. As per paragraph 8 of the bail application and the reply/custody certificate, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. FIR Date Offenses Police Station No. No.

1. 202 20.08.202 21/61/85 of NDPS Act Model Town, District

1 Hoshiarpur

2. 19 24.01.202 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Model Town, District

2 Act Hoshiarpur

3. 60 13.02.202 21/61/85 of NDPS Act Model Town, District

3 Hoshiarpur

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On June 26, 2024, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 65 grams of Alprazolam powder from the possession of co-accused Navdeep Kumar alias Kali. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

4. During custodial interrogation, the co-accsued Navdeep Kumar alias Kali, confessed before the Police officer that he was deputed by the petitioner to supply the intoxicant. 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. 438 Cr.P.C.

5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions andcontends 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:

"That it is submitted that the present case was registered against the co-accused Navdeep Kumar Kali on recovery of 65 grams intoxicated powder. The petitioner was nominated in the present case on the confession statement of the co-accused Navdeep Kumar @ Kali and the co-accused Navdeep Kumar @ Kali stated in his confession statement that the petitioner gave him his Activa and intoxicated powder for supplying the intoxicated powder to his customer.”

8. Dealing in 65 grams of Alprazolam is a punishable offense under the NDPS Act in the following terms:

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 in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes.

11. The petitioner's other difficulty is his massive criminal history of similar cases. However, considering the quality of evidence, even the criminal history