IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.08.2025 Pronounced on: 28.08.2025 Raju @ Niyar Masih ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

19 09-02-2005 Dharamkot, 15 of NDPS Act (Section 29 District Moga of NDPS Act 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 10 (E) of the status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 7 24.01.2018 52 of Prison Act Sadar Nabha

2. 147 20.10.2017 15 of NDPS Act Sirhind

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 09.02.2005, based on prior information, the Police seized 2450 kg of poppy husk contained in gunny bags which petitioner and co-accused were loading in a vehicle TATA-407. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023.

4. 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.

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

6. It would be appropriate to refer to para 10(B) of the status report which reads as follows:

“B. The evidence based on which the petitioner was arraigned as an accused: Initially the case was registered on secret information. When police party alongwith independent witness Arur Singh reached at the spot they saw that Paramjit Singh alias Pamma, Sona Singh, Nishan Singh and Raju loading gunny bags by carrying it on their heads and Pipal Singh was arranging the gunny bags in the body of Tata-407.”

7. As per paragraph 10 of the status report, the name of the contraband is Poppy husk and its weight is 2450 kgs, 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 Jyoti Sharma and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—

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 application of release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. Thus, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Given the legislative mandate of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can release a person accused of an offense punishable under the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity of contraband only after recording reasonable satisfaction of its rigors.

10. The State’s Counsel argues that a plain reading of Section 37 reveals that the legislature intends to make the law stringent to