IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 22.09.2025 Sagar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

186 22.09.2023 Guruharsahai, 21, 22 of NDPS Act (Section 29 Distt. Ferozepur 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. As per paragraph 4 (ix) of the bail application and as per paragraph 8 E of the status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Station

1. 142 23.08.2021 21 of NDPS Act STF Phase-4, Mohali

2. 216 30.08.2022 22 of NDPS Act Guruharsahai 3. 152 15.06.2022 21 of NDPS Act Guruharsahai

4. 348 15.09.2022 21 of NDPS Act City Ferozepur

5. 93 10.08.2021 22/29 of NDPS Act Guruharsahai 6. 263 07.10.2022 21/29 of NDPS Act Guruharsahai

7. 92 02.03.2023 307, 427, 279 IPC & City Ferozepur

25 of Arms Act

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 22.09.2023, based on secret information, the Police seized 270 grams heroin from the possession of co-accused Rani. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. During the custodial interrogation of the co-accused Rani, she disclosed that she purchased the heroin from Rattan Singh @ Rs.1200/- per gram. She further confessed that petitioner Sagar, who is her son, used to sell the said heroin at the rate of Rs.2000/2200/- per gram; based on the disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an accused by incorporating S.

29 of the NDPS Act.

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 his family.

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

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which reads as follows:

“5. That during investigation, the mobile call details of Rani, Rattan Sing and present petitioner were also obtained and as per the said details obtained through CDR, Mobile number of Rattan Singh bearing No.96644xxxx, 75085xxxx is having conversation with the mobile numbers of Rani wife of Ashwani and Sagar (present petitioner) son of Ashwani bearing mobile No.75278xxxx, 80543xxxx, 70091xxxx and 77102xxxx for the last so many months. Furthermore, on the next date i.e. dated 23.09.2023 of recovery of contraband, Rattan Singh accused found having conversation with Sagar (present petitioner) from his mobile no.94664xxxx to 75278xxxx.

xxxxx

8. C The evidence against the petitioner Secret information as well as confessional statement of Rani.

D. The role of the petitioner So far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, he is associate with the co-accused Rani and her son Sagar, indulged in sale of heroin and other intoxicants in the area of Guruharsahai.”

REASONING:

7. As per paragraph 8 of the status report, the name of the contraband is heroin and its weight is 270 grams.

8. Dealing in 270 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

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

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. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the call details cannot be relied upon at the bail stage, and if the said evidence is ignored, then there is only the inadm