IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 05.08.2025 Pronounced on: 27.08.2025 Sanjiv Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

37 29.02.2020 Bhogpur, Distt. 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act and Jalandhar Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.

2. As per paragraph 19 of the bail petition and as per paragraph 17 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Station

1. 209 26.12.2019 21/29 of NDPS Act Kartarpur, Distt. Jalandhar

2. 144 22.09.2022 21/29 of NDPS Act City 2 Malerkotla

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 29.02.2020, based on prior information, the Police seized 260 grams of heroin from the petitioner and stolen car and 50-50 gram each from the both co-accused’ 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 refers to the bail petition. It would be relevant to refer to para N. 7, which reads as follows:

7. That it is a case, where the alleged recovery has been effected on the basis of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion have also been recorded. The said recovery through made in a thoroughfare has been effected without joining any independent witness or calling any witness at the spot to eradicate the possibility of false implication. The alleged recovery from the three accused. Thus, the recovery is non-commercial quantity.”

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 his family.

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

REASONING:

7. As per paragraph 7 of the status report, the name of the contraband is heroin recovered from petitioner’s possession and its weight is 260 grams, and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

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 put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

9. Section 37¹ of the NDPS Act mandates under sub-section (1) (b) of section 37 that

1

37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on JYOTI bail.

no person accused of an offense punishable for offenses involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the appli