113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 Parwana ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Ms. Simi Kandra, Legal Aid Counsel, for the petitioner.

Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.45 dated 06.03.2025, registered under Sections 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Kotwali Patiala, District Patiala.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 06.03.2025 the police party while on patrolling when reached from main road, Badi Nadi to road Patiala, they saw a young man coming. On seeing the police, he got perplexed and threw a heavy black wax envelope on the ground, which he was holding in his right hand. However, he was apprehended by the Police and on asking, he disclosed his name to be Parwana (petitioner). He was suspected to be carrying some contraband in the envelope thrown by him. Thus, search of the envelope was conducted and on conducting, 251 grams of intoxicating powder was recovered. He failed to produce any licence regarding the possession of the same, and thus, on registration of the FIR, he was arrested on the spot. The investigation commenced. Samples taken were sent to the FSL. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 23.05.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. She submits that admittedly the alleged recovery is from a public place, however, no independent witness has been joined. She contends that the alleged recovery is from the personal search of the petitioner, but there is blatant violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is contended that though the petitioner has been falsely implicated in four other cases, however, he is on bail in three cases. She further contends that even otherwise, as per the schedule of the NDPS Act, above 250 grams of Tramadol is commercial quantity, whereas, the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner is 251 grams of Tramadol, which is marginally above the commercial quantity and the same even includes the weight of the envelope. She, thus, contended that it is debatable that whether the recovered contraband is commercial or non-commercial. She submits that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last more than one year, however, till date there is no material progress in the trial. She, thus, has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently controverted the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that it is a case of chance recovery. It is submitted that from the search of the petitioner, 251 grams of Tramadol was recovered, which is a commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. On instructions, he has submitted that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, one witness has been examined till date. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that though the recovered contraband was commercial, however, the same is marginally above the commercial quantity. As contended before this Court, the alleged recovery was effected from personal search of the petitioner in a public place. Violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been contended