IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.08.2025 Pronounced on: 26.08.2025 Gagan @ Gogi ...Petitioner Versus State of UT Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Jasbir Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh with Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

01 02.01.2025 ANTF, Sector 11, 21 of NDPS Act (Section UT Chandigarh 20/22/29 of NDPS Act and

111 BNS added subsequently)

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 15 of the bail application and paragraph 11 of status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Year Offenses Police Station

1. 90 2017 20 of NDPS Act Maloya 2. 160 2019 22 of NDPS Act Maloya 3. 164 2023 21, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act Pinjore

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 02.01.2025, based on prior information, the Police seized 30 grams of Heroin including polythene pouch from the possession of co-accused who in her disclosure statement named the petitioner as the supplier of drugs. After arrest of the petitioner, 24.82 grams of Heroin and 77.80 grams of Charas, five sharp edge knives, one dummy pistol, one electronic scale and 12 grams pouches with contraband residue were recovered from his residence. On the disclosure of petitioner, two more co-accused were arrested and 50.61 grams and 20.40 grams of Heroin respectively was recovered from them. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023.

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 Special Judge or Sessions 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 9 of the status report, the name of the contraband recovered from petitioner is Charas and its weight is 77.8 grams, and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

0

9. Thus the recovered amount of Charas falls in the category of a small quantity.

10. In Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-60671-2024, Neutral Citation no. 2024-PHHC-170456, Decided on: 18.12.2024, this Court holds, [83]. Consequently, when the contravention under the NDPS Act involves ‘Small Quantity’, the offences are ‘Bailable’. When the drug quantity falls in small category, the offence is bailable by operation of BNSS, 2023. Thus, any person accused of such an offence is entitled to bail without filing any bail application, subject to furnishing the requisite bail bonds.

11. However, apart from Charas, heroin was also recovered.

12. As per paragraph 9 of the status report, the name of the recovered contraband is Heroin which was recovered from all the accused persons including the petitioner and its weight is 125