REEMA SAINI 2026.08.27 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----22221111555522225555ooooffff 2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 2222 who were sitting in a swift car No. HR-12-V-1116 were apprehended by the police party and a heavy plastic bag containing 2 kilograms Opium was recovered from footrest of conductor seat of the car. It is further alleged that on 22.08.2025, petitioner-Sumit suffered disclosure statement regarding concealment of Opium in his residential house in Aastha Colony, Barnala and led the police party to his house, from where 1 kilograms Opium was recovered. Later, on 23.08.2025, he again suffered disclosure statement during interrogation regarding concealment of Opium in a plastic box on the left embankment of drain near Bajakhana Chowk, Barnala. He led the police party to the embankment of drain and got recovered another 2 kilograms Opium. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that alleged recovery of 2 kilograms Opium from car could not be attributed to the petitioner as it was not effected from his personal search nor the vehicle belonged to him, thus, there was no conscious possession. Entire prosecution case rested on statement of official witnesses with no independent corroboration. Infact, petitioner was illegally detained prior to the alleged recovery and falsely implicated. The quantity allegedly recovered could not clubbed and termed commercial quantity. Co-accused Gagandeep Singh had already been allowed regular bail. Petitioner, who was in custody w.e.f. 21.08.2025, thus, deserved to be enlarged on bail as investigation was complete and antecedents of petitioner were clean. 4. Learned State counsel concedes that investigation of the case is complete but opposes the prayer for regular bail on the ground of bar contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act, quantity of contraband recovered REEMA SAINI 2026.08.27 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----22221111555522225555ooooffff 2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 3333 from possession of petitioner on 21.08.2025, 22.08.2025 and 23.08.2025 being commercial. 5. Petitioner cannot claim parity wtih co-accused Gagandeep Singh, who has been allowed regular bail by learned Judge, Special Court, Barnala, as the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the car, which co-accused Gagandeep Singh was occupying with the petitioner was non-commercial. 6. Petitioner is alleged to have been found in conscious possession of 5 kilograms Opium which is commercial quantity. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff PPPPuuuunnnnjjjjaaaabbbb VVVVeeeerrrrssssuuuussss BBBBaaaallllrrrraaaajjjj SSSSiiiinnnngggghhhh @ @ @ @ BBBBiiiillllllllaaaa,,,, 2222000022226666 IIIINNNNSSSSCCCC 666611118888,,,, while referring to its previous decisions, has observed as under: 14. As rightly submitted by the appellant State, this Court, in SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff M M M Meeeegggghhhhaaaallllaaaayyyyaaaa VVVV.... LLLLaaaallllrrrriiiinnnnttttlllluuuuaaaannnnggggaaaa SSSSaaaaiiiilllloooo aaaannnndddd aaaannnnooootttthhhheeeerrrr,,,, 2222000022224444 SSSSCCCCCCCC OOOOnnnnlllliiiinnnneeee SSSSCCCC 1111777755551111 while setting aside the bail granted by the High Court therein had held that consideration on the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is essential by the concerned Court. It was observed: “5. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, while considering the application of bail, the court is bound to ensure the satisfaction of conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)of the NDPS Act. The said provision reads thus: “37. (1)(b)(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.” … … … 7. In the decision in Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira [Collector of Customsv. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) REEMA SAINI 2026.08.27 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----22221111555522225555ooooffff 2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 4444 3 SCC 549 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 834] , the three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)as also Section 37(1)(b)(ii)of the NDPS Act, with regard to the expression “reasonable grounds” used therein. This Court held that it means something more than the prima facie grounds and that it contemplates substantial and probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held that the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision would require existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. … … 10. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)of the NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view of this Court that while considering the application for bail made by an accused involved in an offence under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders on such applications.” (emphasis supplied) 15. To the similar effect, this Court in State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu 2024 SCC online SC 4074 reiterated that satisfaction with the conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining a prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs.[See also: Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu (Supra)] 16. In similar circumstances, this Court in Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade 2025 SCC online SC 3049 observed that the mandatory nature of Section 37 cannot be dispensed with: “12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafficking in an organized manner. Consequently, no case for REEMA SAINI 2026.08.27 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----22221111555522225555ooooffff 2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 5555 dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter. 13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Identical were the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff PPPPuuuunnnnjjjjaaaabbbb VVVVeeeerrrrssssuuuussss SSSSuuuukkkkhhhhwwwwiiiinnnnddddeeeerrrr SSSSiiiinnnngggghhhh @ @ @ @ GGGGoooorrrraaaa 2222000022226666 SSSSCCCCCCCC oooonnnnlllliiiinnnneeee SSSSCCCC 666677771111 and UUUUnnnniiiioooonnnn ooooffff IIIInnnnddddiiiiaaaa VVVVeeeerrrrssssuuuussss NNNNaaaammmmddddeeeeoooo AAAAsssshhhhrrrruuuubbbbaaaa NNNNaaaakkkkaaaaddddeeee,,,, 2222000022225555 SSSSCCCCCCCC oooonnnnlllliiiinnnneeee SSSSCCCC 3333000044449999.... 9. The provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory in nature and recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non. Given the allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to record a satisfaction that there are reasonable ground for believing that petitioner is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Prima-facie, the Court is of the view that petitioner is involved in drug trafficking, therefore, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS is made out. Neither case of the petitioner can be considered at par with co-accused nor the period of custody undergone by him can be said to be substantial considering the punishment provided under Section 22 of NDPS Act. 10. Dismissed. 11. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. REEMA SAINI 2026.08.27 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----22221111555522225555ooooffff 2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 6666 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. ((((SSSSHHHHAAAALLLLIIIINNNNIIII SSSSIIIINNNNGGGGHHHH NNNNAAAAGGGGPPPPAAAALLLL)))) JUDGE 22227777....00008888....2222000022226666 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.08.27 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh