IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.04.2026 JAGDIP SINGH ALIAS JAGGI ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB . ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.167 dated 06.07.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 15(c), 27, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of Sub Inspector Rajvir Singh. It was reported by the above-named police officer that on 06.07.2025 he was leading a team of police officials, and was present at Badal Over Bridge Nanni Chhan Chowk, Bathinda. As per above-named police officer there another police party headed by Head Constable Inderjit Singh met him and when they were on joint patrolling duty, at about 1:05 P.M. near Ring road T-point they spotted a truck/Tralla parked under the bridge. As per above-named police officer three persons standing near the truck were managing the tarpaulin, fixed on the truck. According to above-named police officer when the above-said three persons noticed the presence of police party near them, they behaved abnormally, and therefore, on the basis of suspicion they were apprehended.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that when the search of the truck was carried out nine quintal of poppy husk was recovered. According to prosecution, pursuant to recovery of above-mentioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, formal arrest of the accused and filing of FIR were completed and further investigation taken up.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of nine months. According to learned counsel for the petitioner one of the important fact to be taken into consideration in the present case, is that the prosecution story in itself shows that the petitioner was not in conscious and actual physical possession of the contraband. According to learned counsel for the petitioner unnatural story has been set-out by the prosecution by alleging that the petitioner and his co-accused were managing the tarpaulin fixed on the truck/trolla. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the above-mentioned act of the petitioner by any standard does not amount to conscious possession of contraband. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also the petitioner has clean antecedents and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was not registered owner of the truck, and that there is no reliable evidence to show that the petitioner was having any link, whatsoever, with the truck wherein the alleged contraband was being transported.

7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the recovery of contraband is from the truck. The learned State counsel has further contended that in the present case the recovery of contraband comes within the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, without satisfying the rigors enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS Act, the benefit of bail cannot be afforded to the petitioner.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that he alongw