CRM-M-24680 248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PARTAP SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 38 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section regular bail. 2. Per paragraph 16 antecedents. However, in para antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. 1. 107 2. 326 3. 253 4. 426 5. 245 6. 378 7. 203 8. 350 9. 542 24680-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PARTAP SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. Dated Police Station 28.02.2022 Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad, Haryana The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking Per paragraph 16 of the bail application, the petitioner declares he has no criminal antecedents. However, in para 13 E of the reply, the FIR No. Date/Year Offenses 2016 147/302 IPC 2021 15 NDPS Act 2021 15 NDPS Act 2022 8/15/29 NDPS Act 2023 8/15 NDPS Act 2021 8/15 NDPS Act 2020 8/15 NDPS Act 2021 15/27A NDPS Act 2019 8/15/25/29 NDPS Act 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24680-2025 Date of decision:19.05.2025 ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner. Sections Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad, Haryana 15(b) and 27-A of NDPS Act of NDPS Act The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking , the petitioner declares he has no criminal reply, the petitioner has the following criminal Police Station 147/302 IPC Gogameri 15 NDPS Act Ellenabad 15 NDPS Act Ellenabad 8/15/29 NDPS Act Tibbi (Rajasthan) 8/15 NDPS Act Rawatsar 8/15 NDPS Act Rawatsar 8/15 NDPS Act Rawatsar 15/27A NDPS Act Ellenabad 8/15/25/29 NDPS Act Nohar The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking , the petitioner declares he has no criminal has the following criminal Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24680 10 51 11. 23 12. 22 13. 25 14. 579 15. 73 16. 321 3. The facts and allegations are based on a chan bag from co-accused Pardeep Kumar alias Deepu and Baljeet interrogation of the contraband to them at the rate of Rs.2850/ complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. The petitioner's counsel 5. Petitioner's counsel on instructions submits he has no objection if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or more than 50% intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, where the senten imposed is more than 07 years, he has no objection if the State files application for cancellation of his bail and he further cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING 7. As per para 13 poppy husk. 8. Section 2 (vii greater than the quanti quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All se maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial 24680-2025 2 15.01.2018 307/120-B and 3/25/27 of Arms Act 21.03.2018 379 IPC 21.03.2018 379 IPC 31.07.2012 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, 2010 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, 25.03.2015 14/19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act 15.05.2016 Rajasthan Excise Act The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 28.02.2022 based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 15 Kg 100 grams of poppy husk in plastic accused Pardeep Kumar alias Deepu and Baljeet interrogation of the co-accused, they disclosed that the contraband to them at the rate of Rs.2850/- per kg. complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. Petitioner's counsel on instructions submits he has no objection if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or more than 50% intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, where the senten imposed is more than 07 years, he has no objection if the State files application for cancellation of his bail and he further contends that cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING: As per para 13-A of reply, the weight and name of drug is 15 kg 100 grams of Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All sections in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial 2 B and 3/25/27 of Nohar PS Bhanipura, Churu (Rajasthan) PS Bhanipura Churu (Rajasthan) 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Nohar 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Nohar 14/19/54 of Rajasthan Nohar Rajasthan Excise Act Nohar reply filed by the State. On 28.02.2022, ce recovery, the Police seized 15 Kg 100 grams of poppy husk in plastic accused Pardeep Kumar alias Deepu and Baljeet During the custodial disclosed that the petitioner-Partap Singh had sold per kg. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. Petitioner's counsel on instructions submits he has no objection if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or more than 50% intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, where the sentence imposed is more than 07 years, he has no objection if the State files application for contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. the weight and name of drug is 15 kg 100 grams of a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity ty specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate ctions in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial PS Bhanipura, PS Bhanipura , ce recovery, the Police seized 15 Kg 100 grams of poppy husk in plastic During the custodial Partap Singh had sold The Investigator claims to have Petitioner's counsel on instructions submits he has no objection if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or more than 50% intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further ce imposed is more than 07 years, he has no objection if the State files application for trial incarceration would the weight and name of drug is 15 kg 100 grams of a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity a) defines a small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate ctions in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24680 quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes. 9. The petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same drug involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, Supreme Court ha 10. In Shambhulal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, Decided on 23 16671-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of 60 kgs of poppy husk/straw (contraband article) from him and prior to this incident, he has three criminal antecedents relating to the NDPS Act registered in the year 2019, 2021 & 2022. T dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 8 months in jail. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State. Considering the fact that the contraband article is has three criminal antecedents but since he has been in jail for the last 1 year and 8 months, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner. 11. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal gro rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 12. Per the custody certificate months and 06 13. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act 14. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, case's merits, contraband, coupled incarceration is not justified at this stage, subject to the 1Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169 13 July 2023 24680-2025 3 quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence es. he petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same drug involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, Supreme Court has granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent: Shambhulal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, Decided on 23 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of 60 kgs of poppy husk/straw (contraband article) from him and prior to this incident, he has three criminal antecedents relating to the NDPS Act registered in the year 2019, 2021 & 2022. The third bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 8 months in jail. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State. Considering the fact that the contraband article is has three criminal antecedents but since he has been in jail for the last 1 year and 8 months, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal gro rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. the custody certificate, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of days. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, case's merits, and considering the petitioner’s pre coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, incarceration is not justified at this stage, subject to the Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169 3 quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence he petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same drug, and when the quantity involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, the Hon’ble granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent: Shambhulal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, Decided on 23-04-2024, SLP (Crl) The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of 60 kgs of poppy husk/straw (contraband article) from him and prior to this incident, he has three criminal antecedents relating to the NDPS Act registered in the he third bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 8 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State. Considering the fact that the contraband article is a poppy straw although he has three criminal antecedents but since he has been in jail for the last 1 year and 8 months, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the , the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of 01 years, 07 The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the pre-trial custody, the weight of the with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this stage, subject to the terms and conditions of this order. Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence and when the quantity Hon’ble 2024, SLP (Crl) unds for denying the 7 The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section thout commenting on the the weight of the trial . 2023, Para 4, decided on Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24680 However, this order shall webpage. CONDITIONS 15. Given above, shall be released on satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 16. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E- 17. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 18. The petitioner shall abide concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officia circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 19. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculi firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 24680-2025 4 However, this order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to CONDITIONS: Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: AADHAR number Passport number (If available) and when the considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. Mobile number (If available) -Mail id (If available) This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their ilies, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 4 take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court's official provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any ls, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the ar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their ilies, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses this Court's official provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any ls, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the ar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their ilies, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24680 20. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to b abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 21. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 (Crl) 12225-2024, that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 22. This bail is con commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27 NDPS Act, then the St Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the bail. 23. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24. A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download the order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If needed, the attes downloaded copy to attest bonds. 25. Petition allowed disposed of. 19.05.2025 renubala Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 24680-2025 5 The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to b abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The bail condition must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Pa that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27 NDPS Act, then the State shall apply for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the shall the trial Court advert to these comments. A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download the order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded copy to attest bonds. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 5 The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the ditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the ate shall apply for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the discretion to cancel this Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's shall the trial Court advert to these comments. A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download the order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a ting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform lock the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Judge s imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions a fair trial. While doing so, 2024, SLP ra 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the ditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than A of the ate shall apply for cancellation of this bail before the Trial to cancel this case's A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download the order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a ting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document