224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.07.2025 JASRAJ SINGH @ JUGNU ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab.

***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 198 dated 01.12.2017 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein- after to be referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that it has been alleged in the FIR(supra) that police party were patrolling in the area and they saw that one haircut person was coming from the front side, who upon seeing the police party suddenly got panicked and turned back and started walking hurriedly and took out a polythene bag from the right pocket of his pant and threw it on the ground. He was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and upon checking the polythene bag thrown by him, it was found to be containing 40 small white coloured intox-

icant tablets.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Further the alleged contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of commercial quantity. As such, the embargo created under Section 37 of NDPS Act would not be applicable to the petitioner and he has undergone total custody of 01 year 07 months and 15 days and till date the prosecution has not been able to conclude its evidence as out of total 08 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @

Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023.

4. Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in 04 other cases, out of which, in two cases, his presence has been sought through production warrants by the learned trial Court and further the petitioner has misused his liberty and has absconded on 30.09.2023 and he was declared as proclaimed offender on the said date. However, he could not controvert the fact that petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year 07 months and 15 days and his case is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in Nandlal Mondal(supra).

5. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Ku- mar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

“6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, be- ing charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo cracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually oppo-

site to each other.”

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petition