CRM-M-24907-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24907-2025 Reserved on: 02.09.2025 Pronounced on: 25.09.2025 Jagwinder Singh @ Maan son of Kripal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Gaur, A.A.G., Haryana. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 19 27.01.2024 Odhan, District Dabwali 15(c) of NDPS Act 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Per paragraph 23 of the bail application and paragraph 17 of status report dated 05.07.2025, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station 1. 76 19.04.2023 15b/61/85 of NDPS Act Odhan 2. 27 10.02.2024 15b/61/85 of NDPS Act Odhan 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report dated 05-07-2025, filed by the Superintendent of Police, Dabwali which reads as follows: “2. That brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.2024, a police party was present at NH-9 near Gurudwara, Village Chormar on a Govt. vehicle bearing registration No.HR-24GV-2526 for Patrolling. In the mean-time a secret information was received by the police that Jagwinder Singh @ Maan son of Kirpal Singh, Baltej Singh @ Dholu son of Harnek Singh and Sukhmander Singh @ Mandri son of Jagdev Singh, residents of village Mithri are indulging in business of poppy husk and today they are having huge quantity of poppy husk with them in tubewell room/kotha of Jagwinder Singh which is situated near minor and they are in pursuit of selling the poppy husk by taking it out 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-24907-2025 from there. If sudden raid is conducted then huge quantity of poppy husk can be recovered. Believing the secret information to be reliable, police sent notice u/s 42 of NDPS Act to higher authority. Thereafter police party reached at tubewell room described by the informant. After reaching there police party found that a person was standing in the tubewell room and in the Eastern corner of room 12 black plastic bags were placed. All the bags were full and stitched from mouth. On asking, the person who was present/standing in the room disclosed his name as Sukhmander Singh @ Mandri son of Jagdev Singh, resident of village Mithri, District Sirsa. On asking about the bags kept in the room, he got nervous and failed to give any satisfactory reply. On suspicion of having any intoxicant substance in the plastic bags, a notice under section 50 NDPS Act was served upon the abovesaid Sukhmander Singh Mandri. After receiving his reply to notice under section 50 NDPS Act, as per his desire, Gazetted Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa namely Sh. Mukesh Kumar, SDO, Irrigation Odhan was telephonically requested to come to the spot and chowkidar of village Mithri, Baljit Singh son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Mithri was also called at the spot and he was asked to join the investigation of the case. After arrival of Gazetted Officer appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa namely Sh. Mukesh Kumar, SDO, Irrigation Odhan, search of 12 black plastic bags were conducted by the police as per rules. In search, total 242 Kg. 400 Gm poppy husk was recovered and each bag was having 20 Kg. 200 Gm poppy husk alongwith weight of bag. The case property i.e. recovered 242 Kg. 400 Gm poppy husk was taken into police possession as per rules. At the time of recovery, on asking Sukhmander Singh @ Mandri told that said tubewell room is of Jagwinder Singh @ Maan, resident of Mithri and recovered poppy husk has been bought jointly by me and Jagwinder Singh @ Maan son of Kirpal Singh and Baltej Singh Dholu son of Harnek Singh, residents of Mithri. Accordingly, a case FIR No.19, dated 27.01.2024, under section 15(c) of NDPS Act, PS Odhan/Annexure P-2 was registered against abovesaid Sukhmander Singh Mandri, Jagwinder Singh Maan (present petitioner/accused) and Baltej Singh @ Dholu, by name.” 4. The petitioner's counsel has referred to the bail petition and the relevant portions of the petition read as follows: [2]. xxxx The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Mithri, District Sirsa, residing with his wife and two minor children, as evident from the Family ID and Ration Card issued by the Government of Haryana (Annexures P-4 and P-5), and he is engaged in agriculture on ancestral land (Annexure P-6), being the sole earning member of his family with a verified income between ₹25,000- 250,000 per month. [8]. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the assumption that the tubewell room from which the alleged recovery of 242.4 kilograms of Doda Post was made belongs to him, whereas in fact, neither the ownership nor the possession of the said tubewell room has been established to be under the exclusive domain of the petitioner. Importantly, the electricity 2 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-24907-2025 connection installed in the said tubewell room is not in the name of the petitioner, and no document such as electricity bill, connection record, or service account ledger has been placed on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that the petitioner was the user or consumer of the electricity supplied at the site of recovery. Furthermore, the petitioner is not residing at or near the alleged place of recovery; he resides separately with his nuclear family comprising his wife and two minor children, at a different house within Village Mithri, as evidenced from his Family ID (Annexure P-4) and Ration Card (Annexure P-5). The petitioner has been residing independently from his father Kripal Singh and brother Iqbal Singh, with whom he shares ancestral land only for revenue purposes as co-sharers, as shown in the Jamabandi (Annexure P-6). No evidence has been brought on record to show that the petitioner had access. to or exercised control over the tubewell room at the time of recovery, nor is there any witness, CCTV footage, or call detail record to place him at or near the scene. In the absence of such critical foundational evidence, the presumption of "conscious possession" under the NDPS Act cannot be drawn, and his custodial interrogation is wholly unwarranted and excessive. [9]. That the prosecution has failed to establish any credible nexus between the petitioner and the site of alleged recovery, which is a tubewell room situated near a minor canal, which is at a quite long distance from Mithri-Dabwali Road, described as being in "the field belonging to the petitioner." This assertion is wholly speculative and unsupported by any revenue record, possession document, or independent witness testimony. The prosecution has not produced any khasra girdawari, site plan, field inspection memo, jamabandi entry, or boundary verification report to establish that the specific tubewell room from where 242.4 kilograms of Doda Post was allegedly recovered is in the exclusive possession or control of the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner's residential address is well- documented and verifiable through multiple government-issued records. As per Family ID No. 4ULZ5302 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Citizen Resource Information Department (CRID), Government of Haryana, and Ration Card No. 066006676051 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Food & Civil Supplies Department, the petitioner resides at House No. 30, Village Mithri, Block Odhan, District Sirsa, along with his wife and two minor children. Both records establish that the petitioner lives in a modest village residence and make no mention of his residing at or regularly operating from any field-based structure or agricultural tubewell room. The site of recovery is located in a remote agricultural zone, away from the petitioner's residential premises, and has not been shown to be either fenced, locked, or under the regular use or occupancy of the petitioner. Furthermore, the Jamabandi (Annexure P-6) reflects that the agricultural land in the name of the petitioner's father, Kripal Singh, is held jointly with other co- sharers, and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner exercised any exclusive ownership or access rights over the specific parcel of land where the alleged recovery took place. In absence of any seizure from the residence of the petitioner or direct proof of his presence or knowledge about the stored contraband at the alleged 3 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-24907-2025 location, the essential element of "conscious possession under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act is absent. Therefore, the reliance placed by the prosecution on an unverified location alleged to be in the field of the petitioner is misleading and insufficient to warrant custodial interrogation or denial of anticipatory bail.” 5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 7. It would be appropriate to refer to paragraphs 12 and 14 of the status report dated 02-08-2025, which read as follows: “12. That during investigation on 04.06.2025, CAF Id and KYC record of mobile No.85698-00807 of the petitioner/accused Jagwinder Singh Maan and mobile No.97295-26535 of co-accused Sukhmander Singh @ Mandri and CDRs of abovesald mobile numbers w.e.f. 22.01.2024 to 28.01.2024 have been taken in possession from cyber cell Sirsa. According to CAF Id and KYC record, mobile No.85698- 00807 is registered in the name of petitioner/accused Jagwinder Singh son of Kripal Singh, resident of Mithri name of Sukhmander Singh son of Jagdev Singh, resident of Mithri (co-accused). According to CDRs of abovesaid mobile numbers, it has been found that petitioner/accused and co-accused Sukhmander Singh @ Mandri were in regular touch with each other from 22.01.2024 to 27.01.2024 l.e. the date of FIR, as there were as much as 17 calls between petitioner/accused and co-accused during this period. Copy of CDR is annexed herewith as Annexure R-4. 14. That on 12.06.2024, revenue record of Kila No.5, Sq.No.16, Khewat No.232, Khatauni No.370, situated in the revenue estate of village Tappi (over which the tubewell room, in which recovery has been affected, has been built) has been taken in possession. According to revenue record, Kila No.5, Sq. No.16, Khewat No.232, Khatauni No.370, situated in the revenue estate of village Tappi, is recorded in the name of Kripal Singh (father of petitioner/accused) and the same is in cultivating possession of petitioner/accused Jagwinder Singh @ Maan.” 8. As per paragraph 2 of the reply dated 05-07-2025, the name of the contraband is poppy husk and its weight is 242 kg and 400 grams. 9. Dealing in 242.4 kgs of poppy husk in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Poppy straw Quantity detained 242.4 Kg 4 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-24907-2025 Punishable U/s S.15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate 484.80% Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 110 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Poppy straw Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name ****** Small Quantity < 1000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 1 Kg) Commercial Quantity > 50000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 50 Kg) 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.15 & S.2(xviii) NDPS Act, S.O.821(E) 11/14/1985 Sr. No. S.2(xviii) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) ****** Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name S.2(xviii) “poppy straw” means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom; S. 2(viiib)] “illicit traffic”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means— 5 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-24907-2025 (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant; (ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; S.2 (xvii) “opium poppy” means— (a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and (b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act; S2. (xviii) “poppy straw” means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom; 10. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 11. There is evidence of call details and petitioner is also owner of the tubewell from where the recovery was effected, which alone is sufficient primafacie proof of the petitioner’s involvement. As such, petitioner’s interrogation is necessary to unearth the cartel. Further, there is sufficient evidence to connect the premises from where the poppy straw was recovered. 12. Given the above, the petitioner has, prima facie, failed to satisfy the conditions of section 37 of the NDPS Act to make a case for bail. 13. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 14. Section 371 of the NDPS Act mandates under sub-section (1) (b) of section 37 that 1 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds 6 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-24907-2025 no person accused of an offense punishable for offenses involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. Thus, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Given the legislative mandate of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can release a person accused of an offense punishable under the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity of contraband only after recording reasonable satisfaction of its rigors. 15. The State’s Counsel argues that a plain reading of Section 37 reveals that the legislature intends to make the law stringent to curb the drug menace. It is further to be noticed that the provisions are couched in negative language, meaning that to grant bail, the Court needs to record a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offense. The burden of proof is also on the petitioner to satisfy the Court about his non-involvement in the case. While interpreting the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court must be guided by the objective sought to be achieved by putting these stringent conditions. 16. Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quantity; however, it creates hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed, the rigors no more exist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC. Thus, both the twin conditions need to be satisfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condition is to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling them to take a stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. If either of these conditions is not met, the ban on granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense, the Court still cannot give a finding on the assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. 7 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-24907-2025 17. The petitioner’s arguments did not point toward any material contradictions. 18. The submissions made above and the grounds in the bail petition do not shift the burden the legislature places on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not stated anything in the bail petition to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act. The investigation reveals sufficient prima facie evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime; thus, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the petitioner, the State, or the other accused. 19. In Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, decided on 21 Oct 2022, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2109, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [4]. According to the prosecution, contraband material weighing about 13 kgs. of morphine was found in a motor vehicle which was driven by co-accused named Md. Jakir Hussain. During the course of investigation, it was found that the motor vehicle was recorded in the name of Md. Nizam Uddin who had executed a sale letter and handed over the custody of the vehicle to accused Md. Abdul Hai and that accused Md. Jakir Hussain was the driver employed by accused Md. Abdul Hai and that contraband material in question was to be handed over to accused-Khalil Uddin, an owner of a tea shop. [5]. The High Court by its order which is presently under challenge, directed release of both the accused as stated above on bail after they had undergone custody to the tune of about a year. Questioning grant of relief to said accused, the instant appeals have been preferred. [7]. What emerges from the record is that large quantity of contraband weighing about 13 kgs of morphine was found in a car which was driven by Md. Jakir Hussain. Whether the role played by said Md. Jakir Hussain could get connected with both the accused is a question. [8]. The answer to said question could be the statement recorded of Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded under Section 67 of the Act has also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 has been pronounced upon by this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu . In State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta , the rigour of law lay down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail. [9]. However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by the High Court and direct that both the appellants be taken in custody forthwith. 8 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-24907-2025 [10]. We have been given to understand that the charge-sheet has been filed. In the circumstances, we direct the Trial Court to take up the matter and conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months from the receipt of this order. 20. In Narayan Takri v. State of Odisha, decided on 10 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl.) 8198- 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioners are in custody since 28th May, 2022 for alleged commission of alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As per the FIR allegation, 125.3 kg. of “Ganja” was recovered from the petitioners. [3]. It is not in dispute that the trial has commenced and that three prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. [4]. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the third prosecution witness was examined as far back as on 28th January, 2024 and since then, no other prosecution witness has been examined. There is, however, no such averment in the petition. [5]. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that every endeavor shall be made on behalf of the prosecution to have all the witnesses examined by the end of this year. [6]. The trial court is encouraged to expedite the trial and give its decision as early as possible, in accordance with law. [7]. We, however, do not see any reason to interfere the impugned judgment and order at this stage; however, it is clarified that in the event the trial is not completed by the end of this year, the petitioners shall be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the trial court. 21. The petitioner also has criminal history under NDPS Act (Annexure P-8) as per para 16 of the reply dated 05-07-2025, and this shows the petitioner’s bent of mind. 22. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would also not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 23. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 25.09.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 9 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh