IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.09.2025 Sikander alias Juj Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatin Kundu, AAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

185 03.12.2024 Special Task Force, 21 of NDPS Act SAS Nagar (Mohali)

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 14 of the bail petition, custody certificate dated 09.09.2025 as well as reply filed by the State, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 03-12- 2024, based on prior information, the Police seized 260 grams of heroin 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 refers to the bail petition. It would be relevant to refer to paras 5 & 6 of the bail petition, which read as follows:

“5. That further the weight of the contraband has been made alongwith polythene bag and thus the actual quantity of contraband would be less than that which has been shown. The alleged recovery is marginally more than non-commercial.

6. That the petitioner is a young boy and has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since last 8 months. The challan has already been presented. The prosecution has cited as many as 16 witnesses conclusion of trial shall take a considerable period of time.”

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

REASONING:

7. As per para 5 of the reply, the name of the contraband is heroin and its weight is

260 grams.

8. Dealing in 260 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/

Substance Name Diacetylmorphine Quantity detained 260 Gram Punishable U/s S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of

104.00%

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)

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. 56 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Heroin Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Other non-proprietary name ******

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

0

9. 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.

10. 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 ANJU RANI and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—

no person accused of an offense