IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 09.01.2025 Pronounced on: 30.01. 2025 Anil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Argued by: Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

113 14.06.2023 Lehra, Distrcit Sangrur 22/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail.

2. Par paragraph 12 of the bail application and reply dated 08.01.2025, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR Dated Sections Police Station No.

1. 69 25.09.2023 22 (C), 29 of the Sadar Rampura, District NDPS Act Bathinda

2. 21 13.04.2023 22, 29 of the NDPS Khanauri Act

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On June 14, 2023, based on secret information, the Police seized 38 bottles of cough syrup (100 ml each) and 250 tablets from the joint possession of Birbal Singh and Shavinderpal Singh. 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 accused disclosed the petitioner as the supplier of the drugs; 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 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.

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

6. As per the prosecution, 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 put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7. In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077-

2022, decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows:

[10]. Thus, both the twin conditions need to be satisfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condition is to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of these two conditions is not met, the ban on granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, the Court still cannot give a finding on assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant of bail or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts.

[31]. Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quantity; however, it creates hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed, the rigors no more subsist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC.

8. It would be appropriate to refer to the evidence collected against the petition, which is taken from the reply, which reads as follows:

“6. That during interrogation, both the accused Birbal Singh @ Bittu and Shavinderpal disclosed that