IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Pronounced on: 22.09.2025 Simranpreet Singh @ Simar @ Simmu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Sanish Girdhar, Advocate and Ms. Sejal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

288 14.11.2024 Gharinda, Distt. Amritsar 21, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act, 25, 27/54/59 of Arms 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. As per paragraph 22 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 14.11.2024, based on secret information, the Police seized 450 grams of heroin from a car, in which petitioner was present along with the co-accused Gurbaksh Singh and Akashpreet Singh @ Akash from whose possession .32 bore pistol with four live cartridges were recovered. 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 7 to 9, which reads as follows:

“7. That the case of the prosecution rests upon firstly the recovery has not been affected from the conscious possession of petitioner; secondly the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged vehicle Skoda bearing No.PB08BQ2179 neither he is owner nor he has any connection with the alleged contrabands, thirdly, mere presence of an accused in a vehicle from which contraband is recovered does not ipso facto imply conscious possession.

8. That the recovery of the revolver was from co-accused (Accused-1). There is no allegation that the petitioner was in possession of any arm or weapon nor any overt act attributed to him. Therefore Section 25 Arms Act or enhanced rigorous under NDPS Act does not apply to him. Reliance is placed upon Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 CriLJ 3459 (Raj HC) wherein the Hon’ble Bench has observed that “where recovery of arm or ammunition is from co-accused and no role is attributed to the bail applicant the bar under Section 37 NDPS cannot be blindly applied.”

9. That the alleged car in question is neither owned nor registered in the name of the petitioner. The burden of proving conscious possession lies with the prosecution which cannot be merely by alleging that the petitioner was in the car. The Investigating Agency failed to show that how the alleged recovery of contrabands from the car belongs to the petitioner, hence, no offence is made out against the petitioner.”

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 his family.

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

REASONING:

7. As per paragraph 9 of the status report, the name of the contraband is heroin and its weight is 450 grams.

8. Dealing in 450 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

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 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