201-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.08.2025 Pronounced on: 29.08.2025 KULDEEP SINGH PANJABI AND ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kachura, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

38 26.03.2025 Doraha, District 21/27(a)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Khanna (Ludhiana) Section 111(2) of BNS (offence under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act added later on)

(cid:1)(cid:2) The petitioners incarcerated in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

(cid:3)(cid:2) Per paragraph 19 of the bail application, the petitioners has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. On 26.03.2025, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 20 grams of heroin, Rs.3,50,000/- Indian currency notes and 33 Foreign American Dollar were recovered from the possession of the co-accused, namely, Anuj @ Lalla, Ravi Kumar @ Kartoos, Suraj Singh and Swarandeep Singh. On the disclosure statement of Ravi Kumar one pistol .32 bore country made, two cartridges were recovered. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.During the investigation, the name of petitioners surfaced and they were arrested and 13 pistol .32 bore recovered from them.

4. The petitioners' counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and they were nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. The petitioners’ counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family.

6. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioners repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of

2025.08.29 1i6m:5p0risonment 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 Special Judge or Sessions 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 petitioners shall have no objection.

7. The State’s counsel opposes bail on instructions.

REASONING

8. Dealing in heroin which is 20 grams in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Substance Name Sugar/ Diacetylmorphine Quantity detained 20 Gram Quantity type Intermediate Drug Quantity in % to upper limit

8.00%

of 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(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985

10/19/2 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E)

001 Sr. No. 56 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Heroin (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Other non-proprietary name ******

Chemical Name Diacetylmorphine Small Quantity 5 Gram Commercial Quantity > 250 Gram

3. 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi)

& 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of 11/14/1 Notification No. & dated

1985), S.O. 821 985

2025.08.29 16:50

9. Given t