Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varun Kumar vs Union Of India on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
1
CRM-M-6886-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6886-2025
Reserved on: 10.09.2025
Pronounced on: 08.10.2025
Varun Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Special Public Prosecutor with
Ms. Deify Jindal, Advocate for the respondent-NCB.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
NCB Case Dated Police Station Sections No. 51 08.12.2024 Narcotic Control 8/22/29 of NDPS Act Bureau, Amritsar Zone Unit
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the case captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Per paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date/year Offenses Police Station 1 46 2022 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Maqboolpura, District Act Amritsar 2 85 2023 22/25/27/29/61/85 of Valtoha, District Tarn NDPS Act Taran
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the complaint filed by the NCB. On 08.12.2024, based on secret information, the Police seized 35120 tablets of Alprazolam and 1220 tablets of Tramadol from the possession of co-accused Sukhpal Singh and Harvinder Singh @ Padda. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and the BNSS 2023.
4. During the investigation, Sukhpal Singh disclosed the name of one Sonu Singh, from whom 11400 tablets of tramadol and 9600 tablets of Alprazolam were recovered.1
1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:56 ::: 2 CRM-M-6886-2025 Co-accused Sonu disclosed that he had been receiving deliveries from Varun Kumar (present petitioner) and his associate Harish. Based on this statement, the petitioner was arraigned as the accused in this case. Further Harish was arrested and he named the petitioner as main supplier.
5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
6. The NCB counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"5.That, total 7 accused have been arrested till date in the present case which clearly indicates involvement of a whole network involved in trafficking of psychotropic medicine and two accused out of seven disclosed the active involvement of Varun Kumar( the petitioner) in the said case, therefore, presence of petitioner during investigation is vital to unearth the whole network of psychotropic medicine market which possibly can further lead to the recovery of some more psychotropic medicines and other narcotics contrabands and arrest of some other influential persons who are supporting the entire gang. The custodial interrogation of Varun Kumar(the petitioner) is very much required for breaking entire nexus of trafficking of above psychotropic medicines and other narcotics contraband.
6. That as per the information available through the investigation till now, the petitioner is one of main supplier and the member of the network of psychotropic medicine market involved in trafficking of psychotropic medicine. It is also pertinent to mention that petitioner has criminal history as two FIR in NDPS ACT had also been lodged against him in past, FIR No. 46/2022 PS Maqbool Pura, CP Amritsar u/s 22,29,61 & 85 of NDPS, Act and FIR No. 85/2023 PS Valtoha, TarnTaran u/s 22,25, 27, 29, 61 & 85 of NDPS, Act."
REASONING:
8. In the nutshell, the investigation points out that the main accused is Sukhpal Singh, from whose possession the Narcotics Control Bureau had recovered a massive quantity of tablets containing alprazolam and tramadol. Further investigation revealed the involvement of one Sonu Singh as the supplier of the tablets, and the investigation pointed out that Sonu Singh had purchased the tablets from partitioner Varun and one Harsh. Considering the number of tablets recovered, the quantity would undoubtedly fall into the commercial category, both in the cases of Alprazolam and Tramadol.2
2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 ::: 3 CRM-M-6886-2025
9. Dealing in Alprazolam in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Substance Name ALPRAZOLAM Punishable U/s S.22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial
Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Expert Committee Report dated Notification No. & date 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. 178 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and ALPRAZOLAM Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** 8-chloro-1-methyl-6-phenyl-4H-s-
Chemical Name triazolo[4,3-a][1,4]benzodiazepine Small Quantity < 5 Gram Commercial Quantity > 100 Gram 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of Notification No. & dated 11/14/1985 1985), S.O. 821(E) Sr. No. 30 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and ALPRAZOLAM Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** 8-Chloro-1-methyl-6-phenyl-4H-s-
Chemical Name triazolo [4, 3-a] [1, 4] benzodiazepine 3 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 ::: 4 CRM-M-6886-2025
10. Dealing in Tramadol in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Substance Name Tramadol Punishable U/s S.22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial
Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date S.O. 1762 (E) dated 26.04.2018 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1762(E) 4/26/2018 Sr. No. 238 ZH Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Tramadol Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name ****** Small Quantity < 5 Gram Commercial Quantity > 250 Gram 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 26-Apr-2018 S.O.1761(E) & S.O. Notification No. & dated & 26-Jul-
3448(E)
2018
Sr. No. 110Y
Common Name
(Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic
Tramadol
Substance (International non-proprietary
name (INN)
Other non-proprietary name ******
Chemical Name ******
11. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as per 4 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 ::: 5 CRM-M-6886-2025 the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
12. Section 371 of the NDPS Act mandates under sub-section (1) (b) of section 37 that 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.
13. 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.
14. The Petitioner's counsel argues that there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the main accused Sukhpal Singh. He further submits whatever evidence Narcotics Control Bureau has collected is in the shape of disclosure statement.
15. An analysis of the investigation conducted so far clearly points out that petitioner is the person who had also supplied a massive number of tablets of tramadol and alprazolam to the main accused-Sukhpal Singh and his name surfaced in the disclosure statement of Sonu Singh and his associate Harish. The allegations against the petitioner are that he supplied the tablets to one Sonu Singh, who in turn supplied them to Sukhpal 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 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.
55 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 ::: 6 CRM-M-6886-2025 Singh, from whose possession the Narcotics Control Bureau personnel recovered them.
16. It shall be relevant to extract Para 235 of the complaint which reads as follows:
"Details of Mobile number registered falsely on the name of different persons, without having their knowledge:-
Sr. No. Mobile Used by Registered falsely on Statement of registered number accused owner 1 81968xxxxx Manpreet Charanjeet Singh R/o Statement recorded in Singh Chaba, Tarn Taran which he expressed that he was not aware how his name and documents is misused 2 98770xxxxx Varun Deepak Sethi R/o street Statement recorded in Kumar No.6, Batala Road, which he expressed Amritsar that he was not aware how his name and documents is misused 3 83609xxxxx Heera Raj Kumar s/o Ashok Address not found Singh Kumar R/o Ghanepur Kale Road, Amritsar 4 95010xxxxx Heera Jaskaran Singh s/o Address not found Singh Jaswant Singh R/o Gali Ghumma Gurjar, Katra safed Amritsar 5 97801xxxxx Manpreet Chaya Sharma d/o Atma Address not found Singh Sharma, R/o Near Sujanpur, Mutfarka, Pathankot
17. In paragraph 236(e) of the complaint it has been mentioned that petitioner-Varun Kumar, had exchanged calls with Sonu Singh 47 times. It has also been mentioned in 236
(b) that the calls were being exchanged between Sonu Singh and Sukhpal Singh 42 times. There is connectivity of the drugs recovered from Sukhpal Singh with Sonu Singh through telephone calls and from Sonu Singh to Varun Kumar again through telephone calls. It was not the case of one or two calls, but here 42 calls were exchanged between Sukhpal Singh and Sonu Singh, and 47 calls were exchanged between Varun Kumar and Sonu Singh.
18. 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 6 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 ::: 7 CRM-M-6886-2025 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.
19. The petitioner's arguments did not point toward any material contradictions.
20. 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.
21. 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 7 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 ::: 8 CRM-M-6886-2025 (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.
[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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Additionally, the petitioner has criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act.
25. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, 8 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 ::: 9 CRM-M-6886-2025 [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.
26. In Jogindro Bai v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-51218-2024, decided on 29.11.2024, Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:162096, this Court observed, [17]. Adjudicating a bail petition of an accused with a prior criminal record places a significant and exacting responsibility on courts to exercise judicial discretion in a manner that is both reasoned balanced to consider the countervailing impacts on the freedom of an accused and that of society and free from arbitrariness, as arbitrariness is antithetical to the rule of law. As a natural corollary, consideration of an accused's criminal history should be limited to cases where convictions have been secured, including those resulting in suspended sentences, and all pending First Information Reports (FIRs) in which the petitioner is formally arraigned as an accused. However, cases that culminated in acquittals, discharges, quashed FIRs, withdrawals of prosecution, or the filing of closure reports by the investigative authorities must be excluded.
[18]. Although the legal system upholds the principle that crime, not the individual, should be condemned, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles, and a recidivist often operates on precarious ground, where the weight of a significant criminal record creates an increasingly challenging terrain. Nonetheless, where the offense for which bail is sought is minor, such that arrest is generally unwarranted, or bail would ordinarily be inevitable, courts must not deny bail solely as a punitive measure intended to serve as a pre-trial deterrent. Such an approach contravenes the judiciary's obligation to uphold the foundational principles of justice and equity in bail proceedings. Another reason that dis-entitles for bail is the criminal antecedents. Considering the bail petition of an accused with a criminal history throws an onerous responsibility upon the courts to act judiciously and reasonably because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecution resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR, the prosecution stands withdrawn, or the prosecution filed a closure report, cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not criminal, for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will likely re-indulge in the crime.
27. Past criminal antecedent is an additional factor to deny the anticipatory bail.
28. The petitioner's counsel submitted that even during the interrogation, the petitioner and other accused were subjected to cruel treatment, and the people of NCB 9 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 ::: 10 CRM-M-6886-2025 beat them up. He further submits that they have filed a CRM highlighting the high- handedness of NCB people.
29. To this, the Counsel for the NCB submits that the petitioner and the co-accused were treated with a human approach, and this is a tactic to divert attention of the investigator from the investigation.
30. Without commenting on anything on the allegations made by the petitioners' Council. To the present petition, the ends of justice would suffice by directing the NCB in the following terms.
31. After the petitioner is arrested, for the time when the petitioner is in the custody of the Narcotics Control Bureau, the petitioner shall have to be produced, on every evening before 8 PM, before a doctor for verification of the absence of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
32. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
33. Petition dismissed. Interim orders are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Oct. 08, 2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: YES.
1010 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 07-11-2025 23:53:57 :::