[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026
1
CRM-M-11919-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11919-2026
Decided on: 16.03.2026
Uploaded on: 16.03.2026
Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.
****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
430 15.08.2024 Sadar Thanesar, 15/18/61/85 of NDPS Act
District
Kurukshetra
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 26 of the bail petition and the reply/custody certificate, the
petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
3. On 15-08-2024, based on prior information, the Police seized 70 kg of
poppy husk and one kg opium from the petitioner's possession. The
Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the
NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS 2023.
4. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial
custody.
5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent
1 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an
irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel submits that
co-accused of the petitioner namely Ajay Kumar has been afforded the
concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed in
CRM-M-51993-2025 (Annexure P-5). 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.
6. The State's counsel opposes bail.
REASONING:
7. It is not in dispute that the contraband is 1 kg of opium and 70 kg of
poppy husk.
8. Dealing in 1 kg of opium in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985,
constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Substance Name "Opium"
Quantity detained 1 Kg
Punishable U/s S.18(b) of NDPS Act, 1985
Quantity type Intermediate
Drug Quantity in % to upper limit
40.00%
of Intermediate
Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report
2 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
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
Common Name
(Name of Narcotic Drug and
Psychotropic Substance Opium
(International non-proprietary name
(INN)
Other non-proprietary name ******
And any preparation containing
Chemical Name
opium
< 25 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 0.025
Small Quantity
Kg)
> 2500 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 2.5
Commercial Quantity
Kg)
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,
Chemical Name 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
3 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
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
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.
9. The quantity of opium allegedly involved in this case is not commercial.
However, poppy straw was also recovered.
10. Dealing in 70 kg of poppy husk in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985,
constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Substance Name Poppy straw
Quantity detained 70 Kg
Punishable U/s S.15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985
Quantity type Commercial
4 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
Drug Quantity in % to upper limit
140.00%
of 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
Common Name
(Name of Narcotic Drug and
Psychotropic Substance Poppy straw
(International non-proprietary name
(INN)
Other non-proprietary name ******
Chemical Name ******
< 1000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 1
Small Quantity
Kg)
> 50000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 50
Commercial Quantity
Kg)
Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in
S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985
S.15 & S.2(xviii)
Notification No. & dated NDPS Act, 11/14/1985
S.O.821(E)
Sr. No. S.2(xviii)
Common Name
(Name of Narcotic Drug and
Psychotropic Substance ******
(International non-proprietary name
(INN)
Other non-proprietary name ******
S.2(xviii) "poppy straw" means all
parts (except the seeds) of the opium
poppy after harvesting whether in
Chemical Name their original form or cut, crushed or
powdered and whether or not juice
has been extracted therefrom; S.
2(viiib)] "illicit traffic", in relation
5 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
to narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, means--
(i) cultivating any coca plant or
gathering any portion of coca plant;
(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or
any cannabis plant;
(iii) engaging in the production,
manufacture, possession, sale,
purchase, transportation,
warehousing, concealment, use or
consumption, import inter-State,
export inter-State, import into India,
export from India or transhipment,
of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances; S.2 (xvii) "opium
poppy" means--
(a) the plant of the species Papaver
somniferum L; and
(b) the plant of any other species of
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;
S2. (xviii) "poppy straw" means all
parts (except the seeds) of the opium
poppy after harvesting whether in
their original form or cut, crushed or
powdered and whether or not juice
has been extracted therefrom;
11. The quantity 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 set forth by the Legislature under Section 37
of the NDPS Act.
12. Per the custody certificate dated 10.03.2026 the petitioner's custody in
this FIR is of 01 year, 06 months & 25 days.
13. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most
precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory
6 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1.
14. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases
where the quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount
seized in the current FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail after
prolonged custody, as demonstrated by the following judicial precedent.
15. In Shambhulal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 23-04-2024,
SLP (Crl) 16671-2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of
60 kgs of poppy husk/straw (contraband article) from him and
prior to this incident, he has three criminal antecedents relating to
the NDPS Act registered in the year 2019, 2021 & 2022. The third
bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court.
He has already undergone about 1 year and 8 months in jail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State.
Considering the fact that the contraband article is a poppy straw
although he has three criminal antecedents but since he has been
in jail for the last 1 year and 8 months, we are of the opinion that
a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.
16. In Ratnaram v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10-01-2025, SLP (Crl)
16398-2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
The petitioner is an accused in a case bearing FIR No.44/2022
registered with Police Station Barmer Rural, District Barmer,
Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The
allegation against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of
4 plastic bags containing 79 kg of poppy straw/husk
(contraband article) from the vehicle which was seen driving
by the petitioner. The second bail application of the petitioner
was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone
about 2 years and 10 months in jail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent
State.
Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on
13 July 2023
7 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
Considering the quantity of the contraband article and the
period of incarceration of the petitioner, we are of the opinion
that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.
17. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting
on the case's merits, and considering the petitioner's pre-trial custody, the
weight of the drugs, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further
pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this stage. However, this order shall
take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court's official webpage.
CONDITIONS:
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 considers the accused a
flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
21. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following
8 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
terms.
22. 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.
23. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes
paramount to protect the detection squad, members of society, and
incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing
of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be
appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being
imposed based on the preponderance of the 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 of release from prison and inform
the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act,
1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of
acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned
rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in society; it would also
restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
24. 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 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held 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
9 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
must be eschewed."
25. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-
Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, the 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 the necessary consequences."
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion
on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
29. 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.
30. 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
10 of 11
CRM-M-11919-2026
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."
31. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if
any, are disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
16.03.2026
Nuveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
11 of 11
