IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 09.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 Supandeep Singh @ Shiva ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Aayushi, Advocate for Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatin Kundu, AAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

52 05.09.2024 Division-D, Police 21 of NDPS Act (Section Commissionerate 21C, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act Amritsar, Amritsar 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. Per paragraph 9 of the bail petition, custody certificate dated 08.09.2025 and the 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 05-09- 2024, based on prior information, the Police seized 252 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 CrPC, 1973.

4. The petitioner's counsel refers to the bail petition. It would be relevant to refer to para 4, which reads as follows:

“4. It is pertinent to submit that the alleged recovery effected from the Petitioner is stated to be 252 grams of heroin with polythene, while the threshold quantity for invoking the rigors of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act is 250 grams. It is submitted that the alleged contraband was seized in a polythene bag, and no deduction or mention has been made regarding the weight of the packaging material. Therefore, it is apparent that the actual net weight of the contraband substance would be lesser than the commercial quantity. The deliberate omission by the prosecution to specify the net weight of the contraband, excluding the weight of the polythene bag, appears to be intentional and motivated, solely with an ulterior objective to falsely project the recovery as commercial quantity and attract stringent provisions under the Act. This omission vitiates the fairness of the investigation and goes to the root of the case.”

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. He further submits that qua the weight of polythene as alleged by petitioner, is a matter of evidence before the trial Court, as of now per investigator weight of heroin is 252 grams.

REASONING:

7. As per paragraph 16 of the reply, the name of the contraband is heroin and its weight is 252 grams.

8. Dealing in 252 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 252 Gram Punishable U/s S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of

100.80%

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

0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) &

2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, Notification No. & dated 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 11/14/1985

821 (E)

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 o