IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 226 Jaspreet Singh @Jassa State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH petitioner under Section 483 of 2023’. It has been filed 12.04.2025 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ Commissionerate Jalandhar 2. report submitted by ‘ASI Gulzar Singh’. It was reported by the above police officer that on 12.04.2025, patrolling duty. According to above abovementioned police party person going on foot on a passage CRM-M-27344-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jaspreet Singh @Jassa VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab ***** 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 12.04.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ only, Police Station Commissionerate Jalandhar. The abovementioned FIR came into being report submitted by ‘ASI Gulzar Singh’. It was reported by the above police officer that on 12.04.2025, he was leading a team deputed for patrolling duty. According to above-named police officer, abovementioned police party was near bridge on Jandiala canal, it spotted a person going on foot on a passage adjacent to the canal. As per above (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27344-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.07.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** the second petition, filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.79 dated fence punishable under Section 22 of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred Police Station Sadar, District Police The abovementioned FIR came into being on the basis of a report submitted by ‘ASI Gulzar Singh’. It was reported by the above-named he was leading a team deputed for named police officer, when the was near bridge on Jandiala canal, it spotted a adjacent to the canal. As per above-named (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated 22 of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred Police on the basis of a named he was leading a team deputed for when the was near bridge on Jandiala canal, it spotted a named GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document police officer, when the abovesaid person noticed the presence of police party, all of a sudden he took out trouser an officer, on the basis of suspicion, when polythene bag were checked, it was found there were 3. abovementioned seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up prosecution, when the abovementioned tablets were Forensic Science Laboratory, the total weight of the abovementioned tablets was measured as 9.500 gms, i.e. commercial quantity. 4. 5. respondent with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken o the State. However, petition. 6. 7. the petitioner is innocent, who has been fal CRM-M-27344-2026 (O&M) 2 police officer, when the abovesaid person noticed the presence of police party, all of a sudden he took out a polythene bag from th nd threw the same on the roadside. As per above officer, on the basis of suspicion, when polythene bag were checked, it was found there were 125 loose intoxicating tablets, make ‘Etizolam’ It is the case of the prosecution that abovementioned intoxicating tablets, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the were performed, and further investigation taken up prosecution, when the abovementioned tablets were Forensic Science Laboratory, the total weight of the abovementioned tablets was measured as 9.500 gms, i.e. commercial quantity. Notice of motion. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. . However, the learned State Counsel has orally oppose Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been fal (O&M) 2 police officer, when the abovesaid person noticed the presence of police a polythene bag from the pocket of his on the roadside. As per above-named police officer, on the basis of suspicion, when contents of the abovementioned polythene bag were checked, it was found that in the abovementioned bag, , make ‘Etizolam’. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of , necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the were performed, and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution, when the abovementioned tablets were sent for testing by Forensic Science Laboratory, the total weight of the abovementioned tablets was measured as 9.500 gms, i.e. commercial quantity. . I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the No formal reply has been filed by the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present police officer, when the abovesaid person noticed the presence of police e pocket of his named police contents of the abovementioned that in the abovementioned bag, pursuant to recovery of , necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the . According to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the total weight of the abovementioned tablets appears on behalf of State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the o formal reply has been filed by the present It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that sely implicated in the present GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the contents of the possession of the contraband, as the contraband was recovered from polythene bag lying on the roadside. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner incarceration for a period of more than one year and two months, and tha the trial is taking place at since the date of filing of challan, only three witnesses have been examined. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the right of speedy trial of the petitioner is 8. abovementioned arguments. According to present case the quantity of recovered intoxicating tablets ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case twin conditions prescribed under Section satisfied i benefit of bail. 9. petitioner is a person having he has been prosecuted in t pending. It has also been the eight pending cases against the petitioner, commission of offence CRM-M-27344-2026 (O&M) 3 case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the contents of the FIR itself show that the petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the contraband, as the contraband was recovered from polythene bag lying on the roadside. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and two months, and tha the trial is taking place at snail’s pace, as during the period of last one year, since the date of filing of challan, only three witnesses have been examined. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated and therefore, he is entitled to The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to present case the quantity of recovered intoxicating tablets ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case twin conditions prescribed under Section in the present case, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner is a person having a long crimin he has been prosecuted in ten different cases, out of which eight are still pending. It has also been pointed out by learned State Counsel that amongst the eight pending cases against the petitioner, commission of offences under NDPS Act. Th (O&M) 3 case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the the petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the contraband, as the contraband was recovered from polythene bag lying on the roadside. It has also been contended by learned that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and two months, and tha pace, as during the period of last one year, since the date of filing of challan, only three witnesses have been examined. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the right of speedy trial of the violated and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case the quantity of recovered intoxicating tablets comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 of NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. As per learned State Counsel, the twin conditions prescribed under Section-37 of NDPS Act does not stand and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the nal history, and that in the past also, en different cases, out of which eight are still pointed out by learned State Counsel that amongst the eight pending cases against the petitioner, four cases are for the under NDPS Act. This contention of learned case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the the petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the contraband, as the contraband was recovered from a polythene bag lying on the roadside. It has also been contended by learned that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and two months, and that pace, as during the period of last one year, since the date of filing of challan, only three witnesses have been examined. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the right of speedy trial of the the benefit of bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the in the comes within the 37 of As per learned State Counsel, the 37 of NDPS Act does not stand and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the history, and that in the past also, en different cases, out of which eight are still pointed out by learned State Counsel that amongst four cases are for the ned GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document counsel for the petitioner that there is no progress in trial has also been controverted by the learned State Counsel. According to learned State Counsel, three witnesses in the present case have already been examined, and that progress in trial is goi 10. 11. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: i) ii) iii) iv) 12. abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled the benefit of bail. CRM-M-27344-2026 (O&M) 4 counsel for the petitioner that there is no progress in trial has also been controverted by the learned State Counsel. According to learned State Counsel, three witnesses in the present case have already been examined, and that progress in trial is going on at a satisfactory pace. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a : - that the quantity of contraband recovered petitioner comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. Thus, without satisfying twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. A perusal of r abovementioned condition does not stand complied with in this case; ii) that there are very specific allegation against the petitioner that he took out a polythene bag from the pocket of his trouser and threw it on the roadside; iii) that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as in four other cases under NDPS Act, he is already facing and iv) that the total custody period of the petitioner is not large enough to draw an inference that there is delay in trial; Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled the benefit of bail. (O&M) 4 counsel for the petitioner that there is no progress in trial has also been controverted by the learned State Counsel. According to learned State Counsel, three witnesses in the present case have already been examined, ng on at a satisfactory pace. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a quantity of contraband recovered from the possession comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. twin conditions enshrined under 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. A perusal of record shows that any of the does not stand complied with in this that there are very specific allegation against the petitioner that bag, containing intoxicating tablets is trouser and threw it on the roadside; that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as in four other cases under NDPS Act, he is already facing prosecution; that the total custody period of the petitioner is not large enough nce that there is delay in trial; Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled counsel for the petitioner that there is no progress in trial has also been controverted by the learned State Counsel. According to learned State Counsel, three witnesses in the present case have already been examined, A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a n of comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’. twin conditions enshrined under 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the ecord shows that any of the does not stand complied with in this that there are very specific allegation against the petitioner that intoxicating tablets, that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, as in four prosecution; that the total custody period of the petitioner is not large enough Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled to GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. that being devoid of merit the same is hereby 14. shall not have any 15. disposed of, accordingly. 09.07.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-27344-2026 (O&M) 5 As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held being devoid of merit, the present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations ot 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 As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held the present petition deserves dismissal. Hence, , accordingly. it is clarified that the abovementioned observations bearing upon the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held Hence, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document