IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 Vikramjeet ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

CRM-10395-2025 Allowed as prayed for.

Main case FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

146 20.07.2023 Baragudha District 15(C), 29/61/85 of NDPS Act Sirsa

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

2. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 20.07.2023, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 90 kgs of poppy husk from the car driven by petitioner. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

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 status report.

6. Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that petitioner is a student and has clean antecedents. These arguments are mis-conceived for the reason that the quantity falls under commercial where satisfying the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory and the legislature does not give any relaxation to the first offenders who are involved in cases falling under commercial quantity or students. Petitioner is not entitled to bail on these grounds. Counsel for the petitioner further seeks bail on the ground of prolonged custody. As per State counsel, the total custody of the petitioner is 01 year 07 months whereas minimum sentence prescribed for the offence in question is

10 years.

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 petitioner 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 bail. Thus, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Given the legislative mandate of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can release a person accused of an offense punishable under the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity of contraband only after recording reasonable satisfaction of its rigors.

9. The State’s Counsel argues that a plain reading of Section 37 reveals that the legislature intends to make the law stringent to curb the drug menace. It is further to be noticed that the provisions are couched in negative language, meaning that to grant bail, the Court needs to record a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offense. The burden of proof is also on the petitioner to satisfy the Court about his non-involvement in the case. While interpreting the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court must be guided by the objective sought to be achieved by putting these stringent conditions.

10. Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section