IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 06.08.2025 Pronounced on: 26.08.2025 Vishal alias Ghochu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate Ms. Palkin Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Mukul, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

162 11.05.2023 Old Sabji Mandi, 22 & 29 of NDPS Act Rohtak

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 the reply of the State dated 02.08.2025, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, however, per custody certificate, the petitioner has following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

1. 274 08.08.2022 Old Sabji Mandi, 323, 324, 34, 341, 506 Rohtak IPC

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 11.05.2023 based on prior information, the Police seized 15 bottles of narcotic drugs namely Wincirex from the petitioner’s possession. 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 7 of the reply, the name of the contraband is WINCIREX and its weight is 1755 grams, and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Substance Name Codeine Quantity detained 1755 Gram Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of

175.50%

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.21(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. 28 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Codeine Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Other non-proprietary name ******

Chemical Name 3-0-methylmorphine Small Quantity 10 Gram Commercial Quantity > 1000 Gram

0

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:

1) In Chitta Biswas v. The State of West Bengal, CrA 245-2020, decided on February 7, 2020, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, According to the prosecution, the appellant was found to be in possession of narcotic substance i.