IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 INDERJIT SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar, Asst. AG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

143 19.05.2023 STF, Phase-4, 21/21(c)/29 of NDPS Act Mohali (Section 27 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. Per paragraph 4 of the bail petition and 7(E) of the status report, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 19-05- 2023, based on prior information, the Police seized 500 grams of heroin from the car in which co-accused Inderjit Singh Harpreet Singh @ Bhaila and Harmandeep Singh @ Mani was travelling. The petitioner was able to escape and was arrested lateron. 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 3, which reads as follows:

“3. That the petitioner is entitled for grant of regular bail on the following grounds:-

ix) That the petitioner is in judicial custody since 1.9.2024, whereas no offence has been committed by the petitioner.

x) That it may be submitted here that neither the petitioner was arrested at the spot nor any recovery was effected from the conscious possession of present petitioner.

xi) That the story of the prosecution is highly doubtful as the petitioner managed to flee from the spot in the presence of the Police officials, who were armed with ammunition and they could have chased the petitioner in case he actually able to flee from spot.

xii) That in fact, the petitioner was picked from his house and later on, he had been implicated in the present case whereas he has no link with the alleged recovery. Moreover, the identity of petitioner is a moot point, which would be decided prosecution evidence. during trial by leading prosecution evidence.

xiii) That 500 grams heroin containing salt Diacetylmorphine was recovered from the conscious possession of co- accused Harmandeep Singh @ Mani and Harpreet Singh @Bhella not from the possession of the petitioner.”

5. Petitioner's counsel on instructions submits he has no objection if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, where the sentence imposed is more than

07 years, he has no objection if the State files application for cancellation of his bail.

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

7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

“B. The evidence based on which the petitioner was arraigned as an accused.

The petitioner was arraigned as accused on the basis of secret information. C. The evidence against the petitioner. During the search of the S- PRESSO car, 500 gm Heroin (commercial quantity), was recovered. The dope test of the petitioner also came out to be positive.

D. The role of the petitioner.

The petitioner was doing the illegal business of Heroin along with his co-

accused and had given his car for supplying the Heroin to customers.”

REASONING:

8. As per paragraph C of the reply, the name of the contraband is heroin and its weight is 500 grams.

9. Dealing in 500 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Sr. No. 2(xvi)(d)

10. The quantity allegedly inv