IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 Sukhbaj Singh @ Laddi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

85 26.06.2024 Ghuman, Distt. Gurdaspur 21, 22, 27-A, 29-61-85 of NPDS 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 4 of the bail application, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 26.06.2024, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 10 grams of heroin and 30 loose intoxicant tablets (containing 3.48 grams of Etizolam) from the petitioner’s possession. 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 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 his 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 status report.

REASONING

8. As per paragraph 6 of the status report, the name of the contraband is heroin and Etizolam and its weight is 10 grams and 3.48 grams respectively.

9. Dealing in 10 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

0

10. Thus, the quantity of heroin falls in the intermediate category, and there are no exceptions to deny bail.

11. Dealing in 3.48 grams of Etizolam in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date S.O. 1351 (E) dated 13.03.2019

0

12. 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.

13. As per the custody certificate dated 30.08.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of 09 months and 09 days.

14. 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 there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. Thus, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Given the legislative