IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34673-2024 Reserved on: 06.02.2025 Pronounced on: 28.02.2025 Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CRM-M-41616-2024 Gurtej Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-34673-2024.

Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-41616-2024.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

16 03.02.2024 Special Task Force, District 15-C of NDPS Act STF Wing Bathinda

1. This order shall dispose of two bail petitions as mentioned above. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from CRM-M-34673-2024 titled as Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi vs. State of Punjab.

2. The petitioner(s) incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.

3. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. However, co-accused Gurtej Singh has criminal history.

4. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 03.02.2024, the investigator received a secret information that Jagsir Singh and Gurtej Singh are selling poppy husk which they brought from the State of Haryana and they have concealed it in the animal shed. The informant further told that on that day also, they were carrying poppy husk in their lancer car and in case, police is able to nab them, massive quantity of poppy straw can be recovered. After that report under Section 42 of NDPS Act was written and sent as per the procedure. Subsequently, a naka was laid and the car was spotted and it was ordered to be stopped. Jagsir Singh and Gurtej Singh were found present and they opted for search by the Magistrate. Subsequently police recovered 3 bags, out of which, two bags were containing 19 kg of poppy husk each and other one containing 18 kg, in total 56 kg. The quantity of poppy husk greater than 50 kg falls in commercial quantity, as such, the total poppy husk which was recovered from the petitioner(s), prima facie falls in commercial category and Section 37 of NDPS Act applies. As such it has been explicitly mentioned that Section 42 was complied with. Since the search was not from the person, as such Section 50 of NDPS Act does not apply. Further the samples were drawn from all the three bags and one sample from all the three bags was sent to laboratory, which found the ingredients of poppy straw as defined under NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to bail on merits and regarding bail on custody, petitioners’ custody of 01 year & 01 months is not sufficient.

5. The petitioners’ counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family.

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

REASONING:

7. 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 petitioners must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

8. Section 37¹ of the NDPS Act mandates under sub-section (1) (b) of section 37 that no person accused of an offense punishable for offenses involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on 1 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

(a) every offence punishable under this A