Sections 15, 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic v. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section

Judgment

#1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.68 dated 21.5.2025, under Sections 15, 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City Samana, District Patiala.

#2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR under the NDPS Act involving alleged recovery of 122 Kg. of poppy husk, out of which 20 Kg. was recovered from the petitioner and 102 Kg. from the co-accused.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner CRM-M No.34315 of 2026 -2- is in custody since 24.5.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not scrupulously been complied with, thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Sukhchain Singh. Learned counsel has also argued that the co-accused Sukhchain Singh and Gurpreet Singh, from whom 102 Kg. of poppy husk was recovered, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.5.2026 passed in CRM-M No.23138 of 2026 and CRM-M No.16480 of 2026. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and 01 month. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

#4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that pursuant to disclosure statement, recovery of 20 Kg. of poppy husk was also effected from the petitioner. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 15.7.2026 in the Court, which is taken on record.

#5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

#6. The petitioner was arrested on 24.5.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 14.11.2025. Total 25 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 01 has been CRM-M No.34315 of 2026 -3- given up and none have been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused-Sukhchain Singh, from whom 102 Kg. of poppy husk was allegedly recovered. It is not in dispute that co- accused, namely Sukhchain Singh and Gurpreet Singh, have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. It is also not in dispute that 20 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the petitioner in pursuant to the disclosure statement, but that quantity falls under the category of non- commercial. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. This Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:089161) has held thus: “14. postulates emerge: As a sequitur to above-said rumination, following (I) (i)A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial CRM-M No.34315 of 2026 -4- quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act. (ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc. (iii)The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail- applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail- applicant. II. III. IV. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”: (i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea. (ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial. (iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail plea. V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’: (i) The word ‘likely’ ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant. (ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in CRM-M No.34315 of 2026 -5- the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future. (iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter.”

6.2 In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted.

6.3 As per custody certificate dated 15.7.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 01 month and 19 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in another FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta CRM-M No.34315 of 2026 -6- High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

6.4 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.12.2025. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner and pace of trial, this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: “10. principles emerge: As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following I. Second/successive maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. regular bail petition(s) second/successive II. Such maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non- prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. regular bail petition(s) III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). CRM-M No.34315 of 2026 -7- V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

#7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.

#8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed CRM-M No.34315 of 2026 -8- hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

#10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

16.7.2026 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No