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

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

39 01.03.2025 City Sunam, 22 & 29 of NDPS Act District Sangrur

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 2023, 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 paragraph 6 of the bail petition and reply/custody certificate, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Station

1 101 08.04.2020 21, 27, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act Sunam 2 178 17.08.2021 21, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act Sunam

3 25 07.02.2022 21 & 29 of NDPS Act City 1, Sangrur

4 291 24.12.2022 21/61/85 of NDPS Act Sunam 5 131 06.06.2023 21 of NDPS Act Sunam 6 73 17.08.2023 21/29 of NDPS Act Chhajali 7 50 28.09.2023 21/29 of NDPS Act Cheema 8 260 17.11.2023 21 of NDPS Act Sunam 9 118 20.08.2024 21 of NDPS Act Sunam 10 159 23.08.2015 15-61-85 of NDPS Act Sunam

11 122 20.06.2023 52A of Prisons Act City 1 Sangrur

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 01-03-

2025, the police had recovered 90 tablets of Alprazolam (weighting 14.04 grams) from petitioner’s possession and 800 tablets of Alprazolam ( weighing 127.98 grams) from co- accused Soni Singh. During the custodial interrogation of the accused Soni Singh, he disclosed the petitioner as the supplier of the drugs; based on the disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an accused by incorporating S. 29 of the NDPS Act. As such the petitioner was interrogated, and based on the petitioner’s disclosure, the police recovered 90 tablets of Alprazolam, which weighed 14.04 grams of Alprazolam.

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. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

8. While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously wit