IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.10.2025 Pronounced on: 29.10.2025 Rajdeep Singh @ Raju ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

185 14.10.2023 Sadar Ferozepur, 21 of NDPS Act (Section 29 District Ferozepur 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 11 of the bail petition and reply/custody certificate, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1 231 08.10.2022 25/28/29/30 of NDPS Sadar Ferozepur Act and 188 IPC

2 17 01.02.2024 21 of NDPS Act Sidhwan Bet

3 62 05.02.2024 52A of Prisons Act City Ferozepur

4 185 14.10.2023 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Sadar Ferozepur Act

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 14.10.2023 based on secret information, the Police seized 2 kg heroin from the possession of petitioner as well as co-accused Amrik Singh alias Sema. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

4. Petitioner’s counsel submits that co-accused Amrik Singh alias Sema has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-278-2025. 5. 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. Counsel further 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.

REASONING:

7. As per paragraph 11 of the reply, the name of the contraband is heroin and its weight is 2 kg, and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/

Substance Name Diacetylmorphine Quantity detained 2 Kg Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of

800.00%

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)

Punishable U/s S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 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 Psychotropic Heroin Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN)

Other non-proprietary name ******

0

8. 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.

9. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases where the quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount seized in the current FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail after prolonged custody, as demonstrated by the following judicial precedent.

10. In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 0