IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238 CRM-M-5851-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 06.02.2026 Om Parkash ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Naresh Kumar Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner with regard to FIR No.231 dated 14.07.2025 under Section 15C of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ only, Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Anand Kumar’, who had reported that while heading a team of police officials deputed for patrolling duty, on the basis of a tip-off given by a reliable source, the petitioner was intercepted and from his possession 70.615 kg of poppy straw was recovered.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned recovery of contraband, the abovementioned FIR was lodged against the petitioner and he has been duly prosecuted.

3. Notice of motion

4. Mr. Sunny Namdev, AAG Haryana appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. However, no formal reply has been filed by the State and the learned State Counsel has opted to orally oppose the present petition. 5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that nothing was recovered from the possession of petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the false recovery of contraband has been planted upon the petitioner, who has already faced prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than six months. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and therefore, his detention in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose. 7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. The learned State Counsel has contended that in the present case, the recovery of contraband from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there are specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that on the basis of secret information, when truck being driven by the petitioner was intercepted, from his possession 70.615 kg of poppy straw, which amounts to commercial quantity, was recovered. Since the abovementioned quantity comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, as per Section-37 of NDPS Act without satisfying the twin conditions, the benefit of bail cannot be accorded to the petitioner.

10. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner is in custody for a period of little above six and a half months, and the abovementioned period of incarceration cannot be treated to be large enough to draw an inference that fundamental right of life and liberty and speedy trial, guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution, is being infringed in this case. Admittedly, there is no delay in the trial as the period of custody is very small. Thus, it is hereby held that without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail.

11. The facts and circumstances of the case show that the petitioner has failed to comply with any of the twin conditions. Thus, it is hereby held that being devoid of merit the present petition deserves dismissal. The sa