IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Pronounced on: 27.08.02025 Suraj ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Dr. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

764 08.12.2024 Shivaji Colony, 22-C of NDPS Act (Section Rohtak 29 added later on)

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 9 of the bail petition, custody certificate dated 06.08.2025 as well as reply dated 05.08.2025, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 07.12.2024 based on prior information, the Police seized 13 vials of Wincirex syrup from the petitioner’s possession. 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. 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 the FSL report, the name of the contraband is Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride and average weight of one ml is 1.230 gram (total 1599 gram), and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Substance Name Codeine Quantity detained 1599 Gram Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of

159.90%

Intermediate Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 Notification No. & date & 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 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) &

2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.2(xvi)(c) NDPS Act, Notification No. & dated 11/14/1985

1985, S.O.826(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:

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 f