IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 29.10.2025 Abhinav Ralhan alias Abhi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. A.P.S. Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

237 03.12.2023 Dasuya, District 22 of NDPS Act Hoshiarpur

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 8 of the bail petition and the reply/custody certificate, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1 90 22.01.2017 21 of NDPS Act Dasuya, District Hoshisarpur

2 35 13.03.2021 22 of NDPS Act Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur

3 58 2023 379B IPC GRP Pathankot

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 03-12- 2023, the Police seized 45 grams of Etizolam 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. 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 State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

REASONING:

6. As per paragraph 7 of the reply, the contraband is 45 grams of Etizolam.

7. Dealing in 45 grams of Etizolam in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Etizolam Quantity detained 45 Gram Punishable U/s S.22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of

1800.00%

Intermediate Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date S.O. 1351 (E) dated 13.03.2019 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1276(E) 3/23/2021 Sr. No. 238ZZC Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Etizolam Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Other non-proprietary name ******

4-(2-Chlorophenyl)-2-ethyl-9-methyl-6H-

Chemical Name thieno[3,2-

f][1,2,4]triazolo[4,3a][1,4]diazepine Small Quantity 0.05 Gram Commercial Quantity > 2.5 Gram Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) &

2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1275(E) 3/23/2021 Sr. No. 110ZN

8. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is 18 times more than commercial.

The rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

9. 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 Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Given the legislative mandate of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can release a person accused of an