IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 Rahul Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

99 26.06.2024 STF, District SAS 21-C/25/29 of NDPS Act Nagar

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 r/w 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 9 of the bail petition, custody certificate dated 06.09.2025 and the reply filed by the State, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1 51 27.07.2021 21/61/85 of NDPS Act Fatehgarh Panjtoor

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On June 26, 2024, based on prior information, the Police seized 500 grams of heroin from inside the vest of co-accused Harish Arora, and at that time the said Harish Arora was the pillion rider on the motorcycle which was driven by the petitioner, who has criminal history of dealing in heroin.

4. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

5. The petitioner's counsel refers to the bail petition. It would be relevant to refer to para 7 which reads as follows:

“7. That the story put up by the prosecution has another loop hole, which shows that innocent persons are being tried to be roped in the aforesaid incident. The prosecution has cited long list of 14 witnesses and only two witnesses have been examined till date, as such the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.”

6. 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.

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

REASONING:

8. As per paragraph 9A 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:

Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/

Substance Name Diacetylmorphine Quantity detained 500 Gram Punishable U/s S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of

200.00%

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 Sr. No. 56 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Heroin Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Other non-proprietary name ******

0 other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.

10. 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.

11. 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 Sectio