Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amolak Singh @ Anmol vs State Of Punjab on 31 October, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
1
CRM-M-50011-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50011-2025
Reserved on: 01.10.2025
Pronounced on: 31.10.2025
Amolak Singh @ Anmol ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Iqbalpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
03 03.01.2025 Goindwal Sahib, 18(b), 20, 21(C) of NDPS Act
District Tarn Taran and Sections 42, 52A of
Prisons Act (Section 22-C of
NDPS Act added later on)
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 16 of the bail petition and the reply/custody certificate, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police
Station
1 306 04.10.2023 21(C), 29 of NDPS act STF
2 134 05.09.2024 21C/25/29 of NDPS Act STF
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"3. That the true facts pertaining to the present case are that on 03.01.2025, between 12:30 PM to 01:40 PM, checking in Barrack No.5 of Ward No.6, was conducted on the basis of secret information, which led to recovery of 12 touchscreen mobile phones. I keypad mobile phone and other prohibited/contraband items by breaking the flood of the pit made inside the barrack for inmates i.e. 2 VIVO mobile phones, without SIM, For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 1 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 1 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:00 ::: 2 CRM-M-50011-2025 one Oppo Mobile phone having one Airtel Sim No.0923, ID 89910009211291445550, one VIVO mobile phone having one Airtel Sim ID 899100921318695505 and one JIO Sim ID 8991867040036507254, two Redmi mobile phones without Sim, one Oppo mobile phone without SIM, one Realme mobile phone having one Airtel SIM ID 8991000921129118336 U, one Redmi mobile phone having one Airtel SIM ID 8991000922507132873 U, one MOTOROLA keypad mobile phone, three mobile chargers, 6 airpods, one data cable, 16 earphones, 9 yellow tapes and 2 white tapes wrapped packets of substance containing 5150 intoxicant tablets, one packet wrapped in white tape containing sulphate like narcotic substance, weighing 218 grams, two packets wrapped in yellow envelopes containing opium, weighing 102 grams including envelope, 12 yellow and 8 white wrapped packets containing substance like heroin, weighing 1255 grams including envelope and in this regard, the present case FIR No.03 dated 01.01.2025, under section 18(b)/20/21- C/22-C of the NDPS Act & 42/52-A of the Prison Act has been registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran against 2 unknown person.
4. That during the course of investigation on 09.01.2025, the Investigating Officer sought the list of the inmates of Barrack No.5 of Ward No.06 of Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib and total 36 inmates were found to be lodged in Barrack No.5 and from the said 36 inmates, several cases commercial cases under the provisions of NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner namely Amolak Singh alias Anmol as well as co- accused Angrej singh alias Raja, Chamkaur Singh alias Soni, Deepak Kumar alias Deepa Kochar and Palwinder Singh alias Bhinder and on the basis of which, the petitioner namely Amolak Singh alias Anmol along with 35 other co-accused have been nominated in the present case vide DDR No.41 dated 09.01.2025, incorporated in Roznamcha at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran.
5. That during the course of investigation, the arrest of the petitioner namely Amolak Singh alias Anmol as well as co-accused Chamkaur Singh alias Soni, Angrej Singh alias Raja, Deepak Kumar alias Deepa alias Kochar and Palwinder Singh alias Bhinder has been made in the present case on 11.01.2025 after obtaining production warrants from the learned Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, District Tarn Taran.
6. That during the course of investigation, the investigation of the present case was marked to the undersigned and for conducting investigation in For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 2 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 2 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 3 CRM-M-50011-2025 the present case, Special Investigating Team has been constituted and on 22.04.2025, the Investigation of the present case has been handed over to the Special Investigating Team.
7. That during the course of investigation, the IMSI numbers of the recovered mobile phones have been verified from the office of Technical Cell/Border Range, Amritsar and from the said IMSI numbers, SIM numbers 86997-xxxxx, 98729-xxxxx, 89681-xxxxx were traced and the mobile phone number of the keypad number of IMEI No.353635392731242 and IMEI No.353635392731259 was found to be 88723-xxxxx and according to the CAFF of the above said mobile number, the said number has been found to be registered in the name of Tarsem Singh son of Pal Singh, resident of Rangarh Nangal, District Gurdaspur and on obtaining CDR of the above said mobile phone, it has been found that the said mobile is being used by the jail inmate/accused Amolak Singh alias Anmol and the petitioner Amolak Singh was connected with mobile No.98764-xxxxx and on obtaining the CAFF of the above said mobile No.98764-xxxxx, the said mobile number was also found to be registered in the name of the petitioner Amolak Singh alias Anmol and 3 phone calls were found to be taken place between the said mobile number.
Thereafter, the Investigating Agency joined the father of the petitioner namely Lakhbir Singh in the investigation of the present case and the father of the petitioner namely Lakhbir Singh disclosed that the above said mobile No.98764-xxxxx is being used by him and the said sim was issued in the name of his son Amolak Singh alias Anmol and the mobile phone of the father of the petitioner was taken into possession by the Investigating Agency.
8. That during the course of investigation, the statements of Deputy Superintendent Kuljit Singh, Assistant Superintendent, Warder Sumandeep Singh, Warder Gurlal Singh were joined in the investigation and there statements were also recorded, in which they got recorded that on 03.01.2025, during the checking of Barrack No.05 of Ward No.6 of the jail, the jail authority broke the pit made for the prisoners to rest in the barrack and 13 mobile charges, 06 Airpods, 1 data cable, 16 ear phones, 515 white colored Intoxicant Tablets, 218 grams of Sulfa like Intoxicant Powder, 98 grams of opium and 1170 grams of heroin were recovered from the pit made in the Barrack. As per the records, total 36 prisoners were lodged in the barracks on that day. These prisoners, by mutual consent, broke the common pit made for resting in Barrack No.05, made a For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 3 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 4 CRM-M-50011-2025 hut and ordered mobile phones and Narcotics like heroin, opium, intoxicant tablets and Sulfa from their unknown associates outside the jail. They hide them in the secret hut made by breaking the pit and all of them were involved in drug smuggling business from the jail through mobile phones and smuggled drug and mobile phones etc. into the jail through their associates outside the jail and supplied mobile phones and drugs to the jail. If this seizure was not made, all these prisoners would have sold these mobile phones and Narcotics in the jail. The authorities have fixed the opening and closing time of the jail cells. After the arrest, the cells are locked regularly. When this seizure took place, the Senior officers of the jail asked these 36 inmates, who had put these mobile phones and drugs and hide them by breaking the hole, but none of the inmates had told anything. While no inmate can hide such a large quantity of drugs and mobile phones in the barracks without the knowledge of each other, which proves the involvement of all of them. The jail staff also told the Special Investigating Team in their statement that during the seizure from the jail on 03.01.2025, the petitioner namely Amolak Singh alias Anmol as well as co-accused namely Angrej Singh alias Raja, Chamkaur Singh alias Sunny, Deepak Kumar alias Deepka and Palwinder Singh alias Bhinder were also placed near the secret hideout built in the Barracks, on the basis of which, the offences under section 28/29/30 of the NDPS Act have been enhanced in the present case vide DDR No.28 dared 03.07.2025.
9. That during the course of investigation on 04.07.2025, total 31 undertrial prisoners have been nominated in the present case vide DDR No.33 dated 04.07.2025."
4. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985.
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. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.
For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 4 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 4 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 5 CRM-M-50011-2025
6. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to paragraphs 13 to 16 of the reply, which read as follows:
"NAME AND TOTAL WEIGHT OF CONTRABAND OF DRUG:
13. That the contraband recovered in the present case is 5150 intoxicant tablets, one packet wrapped in white tape containing sulphate like narcotic substanceweighing 218 grams, two packets wrapped in yellow envelopes containing opiumweighing 102 grams, 12 yellow and 8 white wrapped packets containing substance like heroinweighing 1255 grams.
The true copy of FSL report is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.
EVIDENCE BASED ON WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS
ARRAIGNED AS AN ACCUSED:
14. That it is submitted that the petitioner namely Amolak Singh alias Anmol has been arraigned as accused in the present case on the basis of list of inmates lodged in Barrack No.5 of Ward No.6 of Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran.
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
15. That as far as evidence against the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that recovery of mobile phones and other prohibited/contraband items including intoxicant tablets, opium and 1170 grams of heroin has been effected from the barrack where the petitioner and other inmates were lodged. Moreover, one mobile phone number was found to be of the petitioner as 3 calls from the said mobile was found to be made to his father by the petitioner and the father of the petitioner was also joined in the investigation. Further, the CAFF of the mobile phone of the petitioner was also obtained and the said mobile phone was found to be of petitioner Amolak Singh alias Anmol. Moreover, commercial quantity of heroin i.e. 1170 grams of heroin has been also been recovered from the barrack of the petitioner in the present case and the FSL report pertaining to the contraband recovered in the present case has also been received. As such, there is ample evidence against the petitioner and he is not entitled for the concession of regular bail.
ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:
16. That as far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted recovery of 12 mobile phones, one keypad mobile phone, and other For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 5 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 5 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 6 CRM-M-50011-2025 prohibited/contraband items including 5150 intoxicant tablets, 98 grams of opium, 1170 grams of heroin has been effected from inside the jail from the barrack where the petitioner and other inmates were lodged. Moreover, one mobile phone number was found to be of the petitioner as 3 calls from the said mobile was found to be made to his father by the petitioner and the father of the petitioner was also joined in the investigation in which he reveals that his son i.e. the petitioner used to call him from the jail from the said mobile recovered from the barrack of the petitioner. Moreover, commercial quantity of heroin i.e. 1170 grams of heroin has also been recovered from the barrack of the petitioner in the present case and the recovery falls under the purview of commercial quantity as mentioned in the schedule attached with the NDPS Act and the provision contained in section 37 of NDPS Act has been attracted and there is complete bar under section 37 of NDPS Act to release any person on bail in case the recovery affected falls under the purview commercial quantity."
REASONING:
8. As per paragraphs 10 and 13 of the reply, the contraband is 218 grams of Scopolamine, 102 grams of Opium, and 1255 grams of Heroin.
9. Dealing in 102 grams of opium in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Substance Name "Opium"
Quantity detained 102 Gram
Punishable U/s S.18(b) of NDPS Act, 1985
Quantity type Intermediate
Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of
4.08%
Intermediate
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 For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided
6 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 6 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 7 CRM-M-50011-2025 Sr. No. 92 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Opium Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name And any preparation containing opium Small Quantity < 25 Gram Commercial Quantity > 2500 Gram Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.18 & S.2(xv) NDPS Notification No. & dated 11/14/1985 Act, S.O.821(E) Sr. No. S.2(xv) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic ****** Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** S.2(xv) "opium" means--
(a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and
(b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine; S.2 (xvii) "opium poppy"
means--
(a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and
(b) the plant of any other species of Chemical Name Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses
(v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided
7 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 8 CRM-M-50011-2025 which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage:
Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.
10. Dealing in 1255 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Substance Name Diacetylmorphine Quantity detained 1255 Gram Punishable U/s S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of 502.00% Intermediate 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. 56 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Heroin Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name Diacetylmorphine Small Quantity < 5 Gram Commercial Quantity > 250 Gram 0 For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided
8 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 8 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 9 CRM-M-50011-2025 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, Notification No. & dated 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 11/14/1985 821 (E) Sr. No. 2(xvi)(d) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic ****** Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** 2(xvi)(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses
(v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or Chemical Name one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage:
Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.
11. The total quantity of heroin allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
12. An analysis of reply, particularly para 7, clearly points out the involvement of multiple accused.
13. For now, the petitioner has prima facie satisfied the first condition of section 37 of the NDPS Act to make a case for bail. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this court will put very stringent conditions in this order to ensure that the petitioner does not repeat the For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 9 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 9 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 10 CRM-M-50011-2025 offense.
14. Per the custody certificate dated 30.09.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 08 months & 15 days.
15. In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077-
2022, decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows:
[10]. 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 Prosecutor, enabling 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 offence, and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of these two 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 that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, the Court still cannot give a finding on assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant of bail or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts.
[30]. From the summary of the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, while granting bail involving commercial quantities, the following fundamental principles emerge:
(a). In case of inconsistency, S. 37 of the NDPS Act prevails over S. 439 CrPC. [Narcotics Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991 (1) SCC 705, Para 6].
(b). The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. AhmadalievaNodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(c). The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act provide the legal norms which have to be applied in determining whether a case for grant of bail has been made out. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12].
(d). In case the Court proposes to grant bail, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the standard requirements under the provisions of the CrPC or any other enactment. [Union of India v. Niyazuddin SK &Anr, 2017:INSC:686 [Para 7], (2018) 13 SCC 738, Para 7].
(e). Apart from granting opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance are the Court's satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
[N.R. Mon v. Md. Nasimuddin, (2008) 6 SCC 721, Para 9].
(f). The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be more than prima facie grounds, considering substantial probable causes for believing and justifying that the For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 10 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 10 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 11 CRM-M-50011-2025 accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(g). The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [State of Kerala v. Rajesh, 2020:INSC:88 [Para 21], AIR 2020 SC 721, Para 21].
(h). Twin conditions of S. 37 are cumulative and not alternative. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(i). At the bail stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. [Union of India v. Rattan Mallik @ Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624, Para 14].
(j). If the statements of the prosecution witnesses are believed, then they would not result in a conviction. [Babua v. State of Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566, Para 3].
(k). Merely recording the submissions of the parties does not amount to an indication of a judicial mind or a judicious application of mind. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12].
(l). Section 37 departs from the long-established principle of presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person until proved otherwise. [Union of India v. Sanjeev v. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1, Para 5].
(m). While considering the application for bail concerning Section 37, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, Para 11].
(n). The confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. [Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020:INSC:620, (2021) 4 SCC 1]
(o). In the absence of clarity on the quantitative analysis of the samples from the laboratory, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the accused possessed a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India 2021:INSC:877 [Para 11], 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1235, Para 10].
(p). When there is evidence of conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, such accused is not entitled to bail given Section 37 of the Act as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, 2022:INSC:26 [Para 11], 2022 SCC OnLine SC 47, Para 12].
For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 11 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 11 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 12 CRM-M-50011-2025
(p). Bail must be subject to stringent conditions. [Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, 2020:INSC:101 [Para 12], 2020 SCC Online SC 84, Para 12].
[31]. 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 subsist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC.
16. Given the above, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
17. The petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-accused.
18. The discussion is only for analyzing bail and shall not be referred to for charges and trial, which shall be on its own merits, without referring to this order.
19. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances unique and peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.
CONDITIONS:
20. Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 25,000.
21. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 25,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged.
22. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 12 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 12 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 13 CRM-M-50011-2025 considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
23. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
24. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
25. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, drug detection squad, their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report, discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
26. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."
27. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 13 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 13 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 ::: 14 CRM-M-50011-2025 the necessary consequences."
28. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition.
29. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.
30. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
31. It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above.
32. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished."
33. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 31.10.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: YES.
For Subsequent orders see CRM-44057-2025 Decided 14 by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA 14 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:01 :::