IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Pronounced on: 22.09.2025 Rajiv Kumar alias Abhi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Tarunvir S. Lehal, Advocate (Through VC)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

44 23.08.2022 Behrampur, District 22/29 of NDPS Act Gurdaspur

1. The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 483 BNSS 2023 seeking bail on the ground that the quantity of contraband is less than commercial and rigours of S. 37 of NDPS Act do not apply.

2. Per paragraph 10 of the bail petition and custody certificate dated 02.09.2025 as well as reply filed by the State, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. FIR Date Offences Police Station No. No.

1 42 10.08.2022 452/448/323/506/148/149/427/395 Behrampur IPC

2 90 14.08.2020 148/149/323/324/325/326 IPC Behrampur

3 14 22.05.2025 109, 132, 221, 3(5) of BNS and Nangal Bhur

21/61/85 of NDPS Act, Sections

25/54/59 of Arms Act

4 78 02.12.2023 25/54/59 of Arms Act and 148, Behrampur

149, 307, 427 IPC

5 29 2022 148, 149, 307, 506 IPC Behrampur 6 47 21.06.2025 209 BNS and 174 A IPC Behrampur

7 11 17.06.2025 197(1), 353(1) of BNS 2023 Cyber Crime

8 67 11.10.2023 148, 149, 323, 427, 452 IPC Behrampur

9 123 01.08.2022 NDPS Act Indora, Himachal Pradesh

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 23.08.2022 based on chance recovery, the Police seized 500 intoxicant tablets from petitioner’s possession and 500 from the possession of other person namely Vikas. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

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 their family.

5. 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.

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

7. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

8. While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein th