IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 06.08.2025 Pronounced on: 26.08.2025 Devi Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Narender Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

56 18.03.2022 Dujana, District 17, 27A & 29 of NDPS Act Jhajjar

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 14 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 03.08.2025, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 18.03.2022 based on prior information, the Police seized 5.150 kg opium from the truck which was owned and driven by 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. Counsel further 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.

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

REASONING

7. As per paragraph 20 of the reply, the name of the contraband is opium and its weight is 5.150 kg grams, and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Substance Name "Opium" Quantity detained 5150 Gram Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of

206.00%

Intermediate Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Expert Committee Report dated Notification No. & date 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial)

Punishable U/s S.18(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 92 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Opium Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Other non-proprietary name ******

Chemical Name And any preparation containing opium Small Quantity 25 Gram Commercial Quantity > 2500 Gram

0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) &

2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.18 & S.2(xv) NDPS Notification No. & dated 11/14/1985 Act, S.O.821(E)

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information, the police conducted a raid in which the peti