CRM-M-26601-2025(O&M) 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26601-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.05.2025 Ajay Kochhar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Ms. Sapna Seth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S.Walia, AAG, Punjab with Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab. ***** MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. Second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.26 dated 01.03.2025 (P-2), under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Sections 111, 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Rural). 2. Reply by way of affidavit dated 21.05.2025 of Mr. Sukhpal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Rural) has been filed, which is taken on record. Copy supplied to the other side. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. -1- HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.23 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26601-2025(O&M) 3. Allegations are that petitioner used to supply intoxicant tablets and capsules to co-accused-Ranjit Singh and Pregabalin capsules were recovered from him. 4. Contends that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2025; and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further contends that petitioner is running Chemist Shop with a valid license issued by the competent authority. Moreover, Pregabalin capsules recovered from him is not covered under the NDPS Act; hence, petitioner deserves the concession of bail pending trial. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel although acknowledged that Pregabalin capsules recovered from petitioner is not covered under the NDPS Act, but at the same time, he vehemently opposed the prayer on the premise that disclosure of co-accused-Ranjit Singh along with his bank entries clearly indicate the complicity of petitioner regarding recovery of alleged Alprazolam and Tramadol tablets of commercial quantity. 6. Heard both sides and perused the paper-book. 7. Concededly, petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated on the basis of disclosure by co-accused-Ranjit Singh. Of course, learned State counsel acknowledged that Pregabalin capsules are not covered under the NDPS Act, but taking into consideration the public interest, order dated 23.01.2025 was issued by Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, while exercising power under Section 163 of BNSS, thereby banning the sale/purchase of Pregabalin capsules in his jurisdiction. At the same time, disclosure made by co-accused-Ranjit -2- HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.23 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26601-2025(O&M) Singh, coupled with series of entries reflected in the HDFC Bank of petitioner specifically indicate his complicity with the main accused from whom commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered. For reference, the details of bank entries shown by learned State counsel are as under:- Date Narration Chq./Ref.No. Value date Withdrawal Amount Deposit Amount Closing balance 06.10.24 UPI-Ranjit Singh- 8264911858@YBL- UBIN0565059- 464684134950- Payment 0000464684134950 06.10.24 4,000.00 0.00 356194.50 19.10. 24 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858@ YBL- 330825353836- Payment from phonpe 0000330825353836 19.10.24 0.00 14,000.00 520778.34 2.11.24 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858@ YBL- 008055961205- payment from phonepe 0000008055961205 2.11.24 0.00 16,500.00 195799.15 26.11.24 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858 @ YBL- 128133152183- Payment from phonpe 0000128133152183 26.11.24 0.00 22,000.00 54,966.81 6.01.25 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858@ YBL- 574115588733- Payment from phonepe 0000574115588733 6.01.25 0.00 39,600.00 170358.35 15.01.25 UPI-Swapandeep Singh-Swapandeep 12@ OKSBI- SBIN0003278- 063103546597- Payment from phonepe 0000063103546597 15.01.25 28,000.00 0.00 186317.53 -3- HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.23 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26601-2025(O&M) 27.01.25 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858@ YBL- 398934784213- Payment from phonepe 0000398934784213 27.01.25 0.00 45,000.00 56104.61 05.02.25 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858@ YBL- 277484103552- Payment from phonpe 0000277484103552 5.02.25 0.00 14,000.00 327969.21 7.02.25 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858 @ YBL- 359092547562- Payment from phonepe 0000359092547562 7.02.25 0.00 20,000.00 181891.21 18.02.25 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858@ YBL- 002616025749- payment from phonepe 0000002616025749 18.02.25 0.00 27,500.00 1048565.75 20.02.25 UPI- 650502010010837- 8264911858@ YBL- 597240284490- Payment from phonpe 0000597240284490 20.02.25 0.00 38,000.00 105029.75 8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the same read as under:- Section 37 of the NDPS Act – 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 -4- HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.23 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26601-2025(O&M) 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 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.” 9. Aforesaid Section, is in the nature of non-obstante clause and which, inter alia, lays down that no person accused of an offence of commercial quantity, shall be released on bail, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 10. Both the above conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The law is well settled that requirement of satisfaction in terms of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) (ibid) regarding the accused being not guilty is to be recorded on the basis of reasonable grounds and that should be more than prima facie. -5- HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.23 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26601-2025(O&M) 11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to record the twin test satisfaction in favour of the petitioner as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 12. Also noteworthy that the menace of drugs has completely ruined the State of Punjab and which needs to be dealt with sternly. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Parwinder Singh @ Parminder Kumar @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) 12601-2023, decided on 14.12.2023, has held as under:- “5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the parameters of granting bail in a case under special statutes like NDPS Act may not be liberally construed in the instant case. We say so taking notice of the fact that the State of Punjab is reeling under the grip of drug menace. There are several drug lords whose roots are identifiable in the State of Punjab, and who operate in the cross-border drug racketing and organized trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It is a matter of common knowledge that huge cache of illicit drugs is smuggled across the border. Some local Pharmaceutical Industries, State police officials and other affluent people have been suspected to be involved, at occasions, in international drug trafficking. The drug addiction has posed a serious threat to the once vibrant state of Punjab. The Courts, therefore, ought to be highly circumspect while granting bail, especially to a repeat offender.” -6- HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.23 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26601-2025(O&M) 13. In view of the above, without going any further into the merits of the controversy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition “at this stage”. 14. Consequently, present petition is dismissed. 15. Needless to say that above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, in any manner. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 21.05.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Harish Kumar JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No -7- HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.23 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document