CRM IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Sunil Singh Negi @Sunil Kumar Negi State of Punjab [ CORAM: Argued by SURYA PARTAP SINGH under Section 483 of been filed for the commission of of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ Nagar. 2. ‘ASI Piyara Singh’, who reported that on 21.07.2025, on the basis of a secret information, a car was intercepted and Pronoy Samuel and Sunil Kumar Negi (petitioner herein) when search of abovementioned car was were carrying 304 gms of Heroin. CRM-M-2301-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sunil Singh Negi @Sunil Kumar Negi VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. S.S. Rangi, Senior Advocate Mr. Fateh Sahota, Advocate for Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the first under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita been filed with regard to a case arising out of for the commission of offence punishable under Section Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, Police Station Anti Narcotics Force (ANTF) The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Piyara Singh’, who reported that on 21.07.2025, on the basis of a secret information, a car was intercepted and Pronoy Samuel and Sunil Kumar (petitioner herein) were apprehended. As per a when search of abovementioned car was were carrying 304 gms of Heroin. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2301-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 20.03.2026 Pronounced on : 24.03.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate with for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab. ***** first petition, filed by the petitioner Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.199 dated 21.07.2025 fence punishable under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as Anti Narcotics Force (ANTF), District SAS The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Piyara Singh’, who reported that on 21.07.2025, on the basis of a secret information, a car was intercepted and Pronoy Samuel and Sunil Kumar were apprehended. As per abovesaid police official, when search of abovementioned car was carried out, it was found that they (O&M) Petitioner ..... Respondent petitioner has .2025, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter being referred to as SAS The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Piyara Singh’, who reported that on 21.07.2025, on the basis of a secret information, a car was intercepted and Pronoy Samuel and Sunil Kumar bovesaid police official, they GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM 3. abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with re sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. 4. 5. the petitioner is innocent, who case, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody f of more than seven months, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. While claiming that the right to speedy trial and personal liberty of the petitioner is being violated, it has been contended by learne deserves to be allowed 6. abovementioned arguments. According to State Counsel, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner. 7. 8. recovered in this case CRM-M-2301-2026 (O&M) 2 It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of abovementioned contraband, necessary formalities with re sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were performed, and further investigation taken up. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody f of more than seven months, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. While claiming that the right to speedy trial and personal liberty of the petitioner is being violated, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to State Counsel, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to the petitioner. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that, the recovered in this case, comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and 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 were performed, and further investigation taken up. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered a prolonged incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than seven months, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. While claiming that the right to speedy trial and personal liberty of the petitioner is being violated, it has been d counsel for the petitioner that the present petition and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to State Counsel, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to d has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that, the quantity of contraband comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to recovery of gard to seizure & sealing of contraband, lodging of FIR, and formal arrest of the accused were It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has or a period of more than seven months, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. While claiming that the right to speedy trial and personal liberty of the petitioner is being violated, it has been d counsel for the petitioner that the present petition and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to State Counsel, the quantity of contraband recovered in this case comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and therefore, unless the twin conditions enshrined under Section- 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied, the benefit of bail should not be accorded to contraband, comes within the ambit of ‘commercial quantity’, and GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM therefore, the benefit of bail can be accorded to the petitioner only in two circumstances, firstly if the twin con NDPS Act are complied with, and secondly, if there exist circumstances to show that the abovementioned conditions should be relaxed due to prolonged incarceration of the abovementioned two conditions does not stand complied with. 9. custody for a period of abovementione to draw an inference that fundamental right of life and liberty, or of speedy trial, guaranteed to the petitioner this case. Admittedly, there is no not large enough. 10. that being devoid of merit the same is hereby 11. shall not have any 12. disposed of, accordingly. 24.03.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-2301-2026 (O&M) 3 therefore, the benefit of bail can be accorded to the petitioner only in two circumstances, firstly if the twin conditions enshrined under Section NDPS Act are complied with, and secondly, if there exist circumstances to show that the abovementioned conditions should be relaxed due to prolonged incarceration of the petitioner. However, in the present case, any of the abovementioned two conditions does not stand complied with. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner is in custody for a period of seven months and twenty three days abovementioned period of incarceration cannot be treated to be large enough to draw an inference that fundamental right of life and liberty, or of speedy trial, guaranteed to the petitioner, by the Constitution, is being infringed in this case. Admittedly, there is no delay in the trial as the period of custody is not large enough. 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 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 3 therefore, the benefit of bail can be accorded to the petitioner only in two ditions enshrined under Section-37 of NDPS Act are complied with, and secondly, if there exist circumstances to show that the abovementioned conditions should be relaxed due to . However, in the present case, any of the abovementioned two conditions does not stand complied with. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner is in seven months and twenty three days only, and the d period of incarceration cannot be treated to be large enough to draw an inference that fundamental right of life and liberty, or of speedy the Constitution, is being infringed in delay in the trial as the period of custody is 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 therefore, the benefit of bail can be accorded to the petitioner only in two 37 of NDPS Act are complied with, and secondly, if there exist circumstances to show that the abovementioned conditions should be relaxed due to . However, in the present case, any It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner is in , and the d period of incarceration cannot be treated to be large enough to draw an inference that fundamental right of life and liberty, or of speedy the Constitution, is being infringed in delay in the trial as the period of custody is 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 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document