IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Pronounced on: 26.08.2025 Mandeep Singh @ Deep ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Harpal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

59 01.07.2023 Jodhan, District 22 of NDPS Act Ludhiana

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 paragraph 10 (E) of the status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 182 30.10.2018 420, 120-B IPC Division No.2, Ludhiana

2. 78 22.05.2019 302, 201, 34, 120-BIPC Dugri, Ludhiana

3. 297 28.10.2022 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act Sahnewal

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 01.07.2023, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 1035 loose intoxicant tablets from the possession of the 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 seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.

5. 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.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

REASONING:

8. As per paragraph 10 of the status report, the name of the contraband is Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and its weight is 127.30 grams, and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Small Quantity 1 Gram Commercial Quantity > 20 Gram

0

9. 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 set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

10. In Sajan Abraham v State of Kerala, 2004 (4) SCC 441, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail for possessing Buprenorphine because there was evidence that did not rule out that the Buprenorphine that was recovered was for personal consumption. However, this is not the petitioners' stand, as such the said judgement does not apply to the facts

11. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases where the quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount seized in the current FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail after prolonged custody, as demonstrated by the following judicial precedent:

12. In Ajay Khatri v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 20-03-2025, SLP (Crl) No.

1228-2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The case of the prosecution is that 6600 Alprazolam Tablet