271 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 07.07.2025 Bhajn Lal alias Bhajan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

273 31.08.2024 Sector 13/17, 20 & 29 of NDPS Act Panipat

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per custody certificate dated 04.07.2025, accused has no criminal history.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply dated 07.04.2025 filed by the State.

4. On 31st August 2024, when the police party was on patrolling, then they received a secret information that one, Amit and Bhajan Lal (present petitioner) dealing in narcotics, Charas and even at that time, they are possessing the same. Finding the information to be credible, the investigator claims to have complied with the provisions of the NDPS Act and they were able to apprehend these persons from a car.

5. During the search, the investigators recovered a bag from the Baleno vehicle which had 1.5 kilograms of Charas in it. Based on such information, the petitioner as well as co-accused Amit were arrested.

6. The petitioner's counsel made the following arguments:-

a) That the petitioner is falsely implicated b) This is a usual story of the prosecution in every case.

c) call details of the petitioner are not annexed.

d) that Mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50 & 55 of NDPS Act have not been compliant with e) that petitioner is in custody from 31st August, 2024.

f) That petitioner is not a hardcore criminal g) That petitioner is a first offender.

7. 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.

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

REASONING:

9. An analysis of the above would lead to the following outcome. The police had recovered commercial quantity of charas from the vehicle in which petitioner was found present. Petitioner did not point out any reason about his lack of knowledge or the reasons that he was not in possession of such charas. Since the quantity involved is commercial, as such, rigors of Section 37 come into operation and the burden shifts on the petitioner, which he did not discharge.

10. 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.

11. 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 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 Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his ow