IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 212 Surjit Singh State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH petitioner under Section 483 of 2023’. It has been filed 18.01.2025, under Section 21 of Substances Act, hereinafter Special Task Force, SAS Nagar. 2. ‘ASI Bakkar Singh’, when he was on patrolling duty along with other police officials Point’, Village Lalchian, Firozpur off, given by a reliable source, apprehended and from his posses CRM-M-9592-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Surjit Singh VERSUS State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. 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 18.01.2025, under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ Special Task Force, SAS Nagar. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ASI Bakkar Singh’, who reported that on 18.01.2025 at about 05:00 pm, when he was on patrolling duty along with other police officials Point’, Village Lalchian, Firozpur-Fazilka G.T. Road, on the basis of a tip given by a reliable source, Surjit Singh (the petitioner herein) was apprehended and from his possession, 500 gms of Heroin was recovered. (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9592-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.07.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH or the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. ***** the second petition, filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita case arising out of FIR No.19 dated Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of who reported that on 18.01.2025 at about 05:00 pm, when he was on patrolling duty along with other police officials near ‘Tea Fazilka G.T. Road, on the basis of a tip Surjit Singh (the petitioner herein) was sion, 500 gms of Heroin was recovered. (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, FIR No.19 dated Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of who reported that on 18.01.2025 at about 05:00 pm, near ‘Tea Fazilka G.T. Road, on the basis of a tip- Surjit Singh (the petitioner herein) was GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with regard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused we performed, and further investigation taken up 4. 5. respondent with. The learned State Counsel has filed custod petitioner. The same be taken on record. the State. However, petition. 6. 7. the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the allegations against the petitioner cannot be p been committed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without adhering to the laid down procedure, the recovery of contraband trial is taking place at a slow pace, as out of twenty five prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far. CRM-M-9592-2026 (O&M) 2 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 we performed, and further investigation taken up Notice of motion. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custod petitioner. The same be taken on record. . However, the learned State Counsel has orally oppose Heard. It has been contended by learned the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the allegations against the petitioner, for being in possession of contraband cannot be proved, as gross violation of Sections 42 & 50 of NDPS Act been committed by the Investigating Officer. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without adhering to the laid down procedure, the recovery of contraband was eff trial is taking place at a slow pace, as out of twenty five prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far. (O&M) 2 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 we performed, and further investigation taken up. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. 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 case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the for being in possession of contraband roved, as gross violation of Sections 42 & 50 of NDPS Act Investigating Officer. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without adhering to the laid down was effected after sunset, and that the trial is taking place at a slow pace, as out of twenty five prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined so far. 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 appears on behalf of State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed y certificate of the o formal reply has been filed by the present petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the for being in possession of contraband, has Investigating Officer. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without adhering to the laid down ected after sunset, and that the trial is taking place at a slow pace, as out of twenty five prosecution GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. that the petitioner has no criminal attending circumstances, he is entitled to the benefit of bail. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the observations of this Court in the cases of ‘Gurbir Singh V/ Punjab’ CRM 47526-2021, ‘Didar Singh @Dara V/s The State of Punjab’ 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337, ‘Ajay Malik & Ors. V/s State of U.T. Chandigarh’ 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 649 and ‘Akashdeep Singh CRM-M-15971 9. abovementioned arguments that in the present case, the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of and therefore, Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Mohd. Muslim @Hussain V/s State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR SC 1648 and ‘State of Punjab @Billa’ 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058 enshrined under Section the benefit of bail. 10. 11. the petitioner CRM-M-9592-2026 (O&M) 3 It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and therefore, in the attending circumstances, he is entitled to the benefit of bail. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the observations of this Court in the cases of ‘Gurbir Singh V/ Punjab’ CRM-M-13314-2021, ‘Buta Singh V/s State of Punjab’ CRM 2021, ‘Didar Singh @Dara V/s The State of Punjab’ 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337, ‘Ajay Malik & Ors. V/s State of U.T. Chandigarh’ 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 649 and ‘Akashdeep Singh 15971-2022. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’ and therefore, in view of principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Mohd. Muslim @Hussain V/s State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR SC 1648 and ‘State of Punjab @Billa’ 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058, without satisfying the twin conditions, enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be accorded the benefit of bail. The record has been perused carefully. In the present case, one of the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act. (O&M) 3 by learned counsel for the petitioner antecedents, and therefore, in the attending circumstances, he is entitled to the benefit of bail. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the observations of this Court in the cases of ‘Gurbir Singh V/s State of 2021, ‘Buta Singh V/s State of Punjab’ CRM- 2021, ‘Didar Singh @Dara V/s The State of Punjab’ 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337, ‘Ajay Malik & Ors. V/s State of U.T. Chandigarh’ 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 649 and ‘Akashdeep Singh @Akash V/s State of Punjab’ The learned State Counsel has controverted the . It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’ in view of principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Mohd. Muslim @Hussain V/s State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR SC 1648 and ‘State of Punjab V/s Balraj Singh , without satisfying the twin conditions, 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be accorded The record has been perused carefully. one of the plea raised by learned counsel for compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act. by learned counsel for the petitioner antecedents, and therefore, in the attending circumstances, he is entitled to the benefit of bail. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon s State of -M- 2021, ‘Didar Singh @Dara V/s The State of Punjab’ 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337, ‘Ajay Malik & Ors. V/s State of U.T. Chandigarh’ 2009(3) @Akash V/s State of Punjab’ The learned State Counsel has controverted the . It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’ in view of principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘Mohd. Muslim @Hussain V/s State V/s Balraj Singh , without satisfying the twin conditions, 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be accorded one of the plea raised by learned counsel for compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document However, it allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner comes within the of ‘commercial quantity’ and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section be enlarged on bail, as observed in the cases of ‘ and ‘Balraj Singh @Billa’ ( 12. petitioner is not guilty of being in possession of commercial quantity of contraband or that he will not indulge in criminal activity in future. Thus, it is hereby observed that for want NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 13. abovementioned factors the case, for bail, filed by the petitioner, is Hence, the same is hereby 14. shall not have any 15. disposed of, accordingly. 16.07.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-9592-2026 (O&M) 4 However, it is relevant to mention here that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner comes within the of ‘commercial quantity’ and therefore, without satisfying the twin conditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail, as observed in the cases of ‘ and ‘Balraj Singh @Billa’ (supra). In the present case, there is nothing on record to petitioner is not guilty of being in possession of commercial quantity of contraband or that he will not indulge in criminal activity in future. Thus, it is hereby observed that for want of mandatory compliance of Section NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, but without commenting anything on the merits of it is hereby held that the present petition, which is filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merit Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned obs 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) 4 is relevant to mention here that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’ and therefore, without satisfying the twin 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail, as observed in the cases of ‘Mohd. Muslim @Hussain’ In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is not guilty of being in possession of commercial quantity of contraband or that he will not indulge in criminal activity in future. Thus, it of mandatory compliance of Section-37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the , but without commenting anything on the merits of the present petition, which is second petition devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. , 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 is relevant to mention here that the quantity of contraband ambit of ‘commercial quantity’ and therefore, without satisfying the twin 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot Mohd. Muslim @Hussain’ that the petitioner is not guilty of being in possession of commercial quantity of contraband or that he will not indulge in criminal activity in future. Thus, it 37 of Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the , but without commenting anything on the merits of petition dismissal. ervations Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document