(212) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 KAMAL SINGH SODHIYA ... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor, NCB with Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this 6^th petition under Section 483 of BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR/NCB No.06 dated 28.03.2025 registered under Sections 8, 18 & 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station NCB, Chandigarh.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Kamal Singh Sodhiya (petitioner) and Govind Singh Sodhiya (granted bail vide order dated 05.06.2025 Annexure P-2) were found in possession of 1.764 Kg of opium on

28.03.2025 in the area of Khamanon.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure including Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution version is inherently unbelievable. As the petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2025 but none of the 13 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail moreso when the recovery is of non-commercial quantity of the contraband.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He is an accused in 01 other case arising out of FIR No.158 dated 19.05.2024 U/s 29 of NDPS Act, P.S. Parao. Therefore, keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail, moreso in view of the bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The detail of the other FIR registered against the petitioner is as under:-

Sr. No. FIR Nos. and date Sections Police Station

1. FIR No.158 dated 29 of NDPS Act P.S. Parao

19.05.2024

7. Apparently, the petitioner is a habitual offender with 01 other case registered against him under the NDPS Act.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Vigin K. Varghese, SPL (Crl.) No.7768 of 2025, held as under:-

“14. We have perused the impugned orders dated 22.01.2025 and 12.03.2025. Both orders proceed essentially on four planks, absence of knowledge of the cocaine to the respondent in the imported consignment, absence of antecedents, length of custody and perceived delay in conclusion of the trial, and a consequent conclusion that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence.

*** *** ***

16. Further, while granting bail, the High Court recorded that there were no antecedents against the applicant. The material before this Court includes the Union’s assertion that the respondent had already been apprehended in connection with an earlier seizure of approximately 198.1 kilograms of Methamphetamine and 9.035 kilograms of Cocaine allegedly imported through the same channel only days before the present seizure. That assertion is neither noticed nor answered in the impugned orders.

17. The High Court then, on the strength of those premises, recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence, treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the justification for bail. Such a finding is not a casual observation. It is the statutory threshold under Section 37(1)(b) (ii) which would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail must necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A conclusion of this nature, if returned without addressing the prosecution’s assertions of operative control and antecedent involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance.

18.