Grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should be interpreted to avoid punitive detention, particularly when the accused is implicated via a co-accused's disclosure statement and the recovery is marginally above the commercial quantity.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Present first petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.249, dated 25.10.2025, under Section 21 and 25 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later), registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana City.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 25.10.2025, the police party was patrolling in search of bad elements and had laid a barricade at Village Bangsipura, where he received a secret information that accused- Sukhpal Singh alias Sukhi is coming from Khursaidpura side in his car bearing registration No.PB-27-H-6900 to supply huge quantity of Heroin, whereby, he can be apprehended and heavy quantity of Heroin be recovered, if a barricade is laid at Sidhwan Bet canal bridge. Accordingly, on the basis of that secret information, accused –Sukhpal Singh alias Sukhi was apprehended along with his Verna Car and an alleged recovery of 253 grams of Heroin was effected from his possession. He failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same, thus, the FIR was registered and he was arrested on the spot. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During investigation, on the disclosure statement of the accused, the petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2025. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana declined the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 26.11.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged recovery of 253 grams heroin has been effected from co-accused, namely, Sukhpal Singh alias Sukhi. During investigation, the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused – Sukhpal Singh alias Sukhi, which is not admissible in evidence. It is contended that in the present case the recovery was effected from the co-accused and not from the present petitioner, even otherwise, there is a blatant violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act and there was no independent witness joined. It is submitted that the false implication of the petitioner is evident and he is behind bars from the last more than 06 months. It is submitted that even otherwise the recovery effected is 253 grams of heroin, whereas the quantity above 250 grams is commercial in nature, thus, the alleged recovery is marginally above from the commercial quantity. To buttress his arguments, he further submits that he is not involved in any other case. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that though recovery of 253 grams of heroin has been effected from the co-accused, however, the complicity of the petitioner surfaced during investigation, as it w