IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.09.2025 Kusum ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

23 06.03.2024 Sadar, Rajpura 20/61/85 of NDPS Act

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 15 (i) of the bail application, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the short reply filed by the State. On 06.03.2024, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 04 kg of charas from the possession of petitioner and co-accsed. 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 parity and 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.

6. The petitioner’s counsel 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.

7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the short reply.

8. As per paragraph 4 of the short reply, the name of the contraband is Charas and its weight is 4 Kg.

9. Dealing in 4 Kg of Charas in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

0

10. 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.

11. Per the custody certificate dated 30.08.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is

01 year 05 months and 22 days.

12. The prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)

(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act¹

13. 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 well as co- accused with similar role has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2025 passed in CRM-M No.4718 of 2025.

14. In Bhola Shikari v. The State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 11-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl)

13236-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, In connection with FIR No. 150 of 2024 dated 10.03.2024, registered at Police Station-Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), the petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2024, as the petitioner along with three others were found in joint possession of 21 Kgs of Ganja.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the r