IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 116 Raj Kumar @Raja State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH petitioner under Section 483 of 2023’. It has been filed 12.03.2025 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ 2. Satnam Singh’, who reported that when he was leading a team of police officials, journey from Village abovesaid person thereafter, picked and threw CRM-M-62763-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Raj Kumar @Raja VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate Ms. Nitika, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed with regard to a case arising out of .2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Singh’, who reported that when he was leading a team of police deputed for patrolling duty, a person from Village Ahirana. As per abovesaid person when noticed the presence of thereafter, picked-up a polythene bag from the right pocket of his trouser and threw the same on the roadside. According to above (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62763-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.03.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate with the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ***** the second petition, filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.21 dated fence punishable under Sections 22 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Singh’, who reported that when he was leading a team of police deputed for patrolling duty, a person was spotted during the return . As per above-named police officer, the ence of police party, got nervous and up a polythene bag from the right pocket of his trouser . According to above-named police (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated 22 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Singh’, who reported that when he was leading a team of police return named police officer, the got nervous and up a polythene bag from the right pocket of his trousers, named police GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.06 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document officer, pursuant to abovementioned suspicious behaviour, person was apprehended, who on enquiry disclosed his name as ‘Raj Kumar’ (petitioner herein). that when the contents of the packet thrown by the above were checked, it was fou 100 loose intoxicating tablets. 3. abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging performed, and further investigation taken up. 4. petitioner. The same be taken on record. 5. 6. petitioner that the petitioner is innocent the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely present case. petitioner possession of the petitioner, and therefore, rigors of Section are not attracted in this case. 7. petitioner 24404-2024 titled as ‘ the total weight of the psychotropic CRM-M-62763-2025 (O&M) 2 officer, pursuant to abovementioned suspicious behaviour, person was apprehended, who on enquiry disclosed his name as ‘Raj Kumar’ (petitioner herein). It was further reported by the when the contents of the packet thrown by the above were checked, it was found that in the abovementioned bag, he was carrying 100 loose intoxicating tablets. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. Heard. It has been contended by learned petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely present case. It has been further contended by learned petitioner that in the present case, the contraband was not found possession of the petitioner, and therefore, rigors of Section are not attracted in this case. In addition to above, the learned petitioner while referring to the observations made by this Court in CRM 2024 titled as ‘Pawan Kumar V/s State of Punjab’ the total weight of the psychotropic substance (O&M) 2 officer, pursuant to abovementioned suspicious behaviour, the abovesaid person was apprehended, who on enquiry disclosed his name as ‘Raj Kumar’ It was further reported by the above-named police officer when the contents of the packet thrown by the above-named person nd that in the abovementioned bag, he was carrying It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the It has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the It has been further contended by learned Senior Counsel for the in the present case, the contraband was not found in conscious possession of the petitioner, and therefore, rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act the learned Senior Counsel for the while referring to the observations made by this Court in CRM- Pawan Kumar V/s State of Punjab’, has contended that substance allegedly found in the abovesaid person was apprehended, who on enquiry disclosed his name as ‘Raj Kumar’ named police officer named person nd that in the abovementioned bag, he was carrying It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the ounsel for the having no nexus, whatsoever, with implicated in the for the in conscious 37 of NDPS Act for the -M- , has contended that found in the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.06 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document possession of petitioner observations in the abovementioned judgment, the abovementioned quantity being less than 100 gms 8. has been contended by learned former petition for bail was not decided on merits, and that disposal of former bail petition, which was dismissed was accorded to the petitioner to file fresh petition. 9. abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions under Section accorded to the petitioner. 10. 11. bail, filed by the petitioner. 14.07.2025 dismissal of first bail petition, there is any circumstances, which may render second petition. date of dismissal of former bail petition, and this period by any stan cannot be treated to petitioner eligible to CRM-M-62763-2025 (O&M) 3 possession of petitioner comes out to be 11.2 g observations in the abovementioned judgment, the abovementioned quantity being less than 100 gms should not be treated With regard to former petition for bail filed by the petitioner, it has been contended by learned Senior Counsel former petition for bail was not decided on merits, and that disposal of former bail petition, which was dismissed was accorded to the petitioner to file fresh petition. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions under Section-37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that this is bail, filed by the petitioner. The first petition for bail 14.07.2025, and there is nothing on record to dismissal of first bail petition, there is any circumstances, which may render the petitioner second petition. Only a short period of seven months has elapsed from the date of dismissal of former bail petition, and this period by any stan cannot be treated to be a period of long incarceration, which may petitioner eligible to entertain this second petition. (O&M) 3 to be 11.2 gms, and that in view of observations in the abovementioned judgment, the abovementioned quantity should not be treated as commercial quantity. former petition for bail filed by the petitioner, it Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the former petition for bail was not decided on merits, and that at the time of disposal of former bail petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn, a liberty was accorded to the petitioner to file fresh petition. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions prescribed 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be The record has been perused carefully. of record shows that this is the second petition for The first petition for bail was dismissed , and there is nothing on record to show that from the date of dismissal of first bail petition, there is any significant change in the relevant the petitioner to be eligible for filing the short period of seven months has elapsed from the date of dismissal of former bail petition, and this period by any standard be a period of long incarceration, which may render entertain this second petition. , and that in view of observations in the abovementioned judgment, the abovementioned quantity former petition for bail filed by the petitioner, it for the petitioner that the at the time of , a liberty The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the the ambit of prescribed 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be second petition for was dismissed on show that from the date of significant change in the relevant eligible for filing the short period of seven months has elapsed from the dard the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.06 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. concerned, in view of the fact that there are very FIR itself that the petitioner when noticed the presence of police party had thrown the packet noticed by the Investigating Officer, the contents thereof, conscious possession of the contraband. matrix of this case, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner not hold good that once the be treated to be 13. is that, that the petitioner should not be treated to be a commercial quantity. Qua abovementioned aspect, it is relevant to mention here that vide Notification No.S.O.1276(E) prescribed Notification is set aside, the lower threshold for commercial quantity has to be considered held that this argument, too, has got no force that the quantity of contraband found in possession of petitioner does not come within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. 14. consideration is that, that the petitioner does not custody certifi is facing prosecution, and those cases include the cases under NDPS CRM-M-62763-2025 (O&M) 4 As far as the arguments with regard to conscious possession concerned, in view of the fact that there are very FIR itself that the petitioner when noticed the presence of police party had thrown the packet, and the abovementioned action noticed by the Investigating Officer, who collected the the contents thereof, makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband. In view of abovementioned factual matrix of this case, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner not hold good that once the packet was thrown by the petitioner be treated to be in conscious possession of the contraband. The third leg of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner , that the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of ioner should not be treated to be a commercial quantity. Qua abovementioned aspect, it is relevant to mention here that vide Notification 1276(E) dated 23.03.2021, the quantity of Etizolam prescribed by the Central Government, Notification is set aside, the lower threshold for commercial quantity has to considered as per abovementioned Notification held that this argument, too, has got no force that the quantity of contraband found in possession of petitioner does not come within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. In addition to above, one more relevant aspect to be taken into consideration is that, that the petitioner does not custody certificate shows that there are several cases, wherein the petitioner is facing prosecution, and those cases include the cases under NDPS (O&M) 4 As far as the arguments with regard to conscious possession concerned, in view of the fact that there are very specific allegations in the FIR itself that the petitioner when noticed the presence of police party had and the abovementioned action of the petitioner was duly who collected the packet and checked makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was in In view of abovementioned factual matrix of this case, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner does packet was thrown by the petitioner, he cannot in conscious possession of the contraband. The third leg of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of ioner should not be treated to be a commercial quantity. Qua abovementioned aspect, it is relevant to mention here that vide Notification , the quantity of Etizolam has been , and unless the abovementioned Notification is set aside, the lower threshold for commercial quantity has to as per abovementioned Notification only. Thus, it is hereby held that this argument, too, has got no force that the quantity of contraband found in possession of petitioner does not come within the ambit of In addition to above, one more relevant aspect to be taken into consideration is that, that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents. The cate shows that there are several cases, wherein the petitioner is facing prosecution, and those cases include the cases under NDPS Act. As far as the arguments with regard to conscious possession is specific allegations in the FIR itself that the petitioner when noticed the presence of police party had duly and checked makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was in In view of abovementioned factual does he cannot The third leg of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of ioner should not be treated to be a commercial quantity. Qua abovementioned aspect, it is relevant to mention here that vide Notification has been unless the abovementioned Notification is set aside, the lower threshold for commercial quantity has to Thus, it is hereby held that this argument, too, has got no force that the quantity of contraband found in possession of petitioner does not come within the ambit of In addition to above, one more relevant aspect to be taken into have clean antecedents. The cate shows that there are several cases, wherein the petitioner GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.06 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15. abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that present petition, which is second petition for bail, the same is hereby 16. shall not have any 17. disposed of, accordingly. 05.03.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-62763-2025 (O&M) 5 Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that present petition, which is second petition for bail, is hereby dismissed, accordingly However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable (O&M) 5 Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that being devoid of merit present petition, which is second petition for bail, deserves dismissal. Hence, , accordingly. it is clarified that the abovementioned observations its of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the being devoid of merit the Hence, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.06 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document