IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 28.10.2025 Rakesh Kumar alias Billa ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Iqbalpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

87 19.05.2025 Mehtapur, District 21(b) of NDPS Act Jalandhar Rural

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 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 the custody certificate/reply, petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Station

1 41 20.02.2014 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC Nakodar

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 19-05- 2025, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 100 grams of heroin from the petitioner’s possession. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985.

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. It shall be relevant to extract to the paragraphs 9 and 10 of the reply, which reads as follows:

“EVIDENCE AGAINST PETITIONER:

9. That a recovery of 100 grams of heroin which was effected from the petitioner, 260 grams heroin was also recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Himmat Gill. The said co-accused Himmat Gill, as per the disclosure statement suffered by petitioner, had sold 100 grams of heroin to the petitioner. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:

10. That a chance recovery of 100 grams of heroin was effected from the petitioner. Furthermore, 260 grams Heroin was also recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Himmat Gill. The said co- accused Himmat Gill, as per the disclosure statement suffered by petitioner, had sold 100 grams of heroin to the petitioner.”

8. Given the above, the accused can not be held liable for the subsequent recovery made from the co-accused, and the attribution to the petitioner can only be 100 grams of heroin.

9. As per paragraph 9 of the reply, the contraband is 100 grams of heroin, which was recovered from the petitioner.

10. Dealing in 100 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 100 Gram Punishable U/s S.21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 Small Quantity 5 Gram Commercial Quantity > 250 Gram

11. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is not commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule