[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravinder Singh Alias Kaka vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2026

                           CRM-M-70517-2025 (O&M)                    1


                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                    AT CHANDIGARH

                           130
                                                      CRM-M-70517-2025 (O&M)
                                                       Decided on : 19.03.2026


                           RAVINDER SINGH ALIAS KAKA
                                                                                            ......Petitioner

                                                               Versus
                           STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                                          ......Respondent

                           CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

                           Present:        Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate,
                                           for the petitioner.

                                           Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

                                                                ****

                           SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of

BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a

criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed

hereunder:-

Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner(s) No. Station

Ravinder Singh 19 07.03.2025 22(c) of Bhogpur Jalandhar @ Kaka, aged NDPS Act about 34 years

2. As per the case of prosecution, upon noticing the police

party, accused, namely Ravinder Singh @ Kaka (petitioner herein) and

Lovenpreet Singh @ Lovely, allegedly threw away the plastic envelopes

they were carrying. Upon checking, 55 loose intoxicant tablets were

recovered from the envelope discarded by the petitioner, while 50 loose

intoxicant tablets were recovered from the envelope thrown by the co-

accused. The recovered tablets were subsequently confirmed to contain

Etizolam.

From the 55 tablets recovered from the petitioner, total

content of Etizolam was found to be 5.775 grams.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner,

who is of the age of 34 years, has no prior involvement in any similar

offence. It is further submitted that, vide order dated 03.02.2026,

petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, which he did not

misuse, and he duly surrendered before the jail authorities, in compliance

with the directions issued by this Court.

4. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since

07.03.2025, i.e., for a period of approximately 7 months and 21 days. Out

of total 17 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, till date.

Consequently, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.

Thus, counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the

present case.

5. In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel

for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate

dated 18.03.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag

the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the

counsel for the petitioner.

As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner

has already undergone 07 months and 21 days period inside jail and there

is no other case registered against him.

6. Learned State counsel has also filed status report dated

24.02.2026 in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Registry

is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file.

7. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and

submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a

substantial quantity of intoxicant tablets, falling within the category of

commercial quantity, has been recovered from the petitioner.

In view of the gravity and seriousness of the offence, it is

contended that petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail.

Accordingly, prayer is made for dismissal of the present petition.

8. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel

for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it.

9. With regard to the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner,

namely Ravinder Singh @ Kaka, from whom 55 tablets of Etizolam were

allegedly recovered, it is pertinent to note that this Court, vide order

dated 10.12.2025, passed in CRM-M-22148-2025 titled as "Amit Kumar

vs. State of Punjab", while granting bail to the accused therein,

considered the issue relating to different salts, namely etizolam and

alprazolam.

10. The relevant portion of paragraph No.6 of the said order is

reproduced here below:-

"Concerning the salt of Etizolam, this Court has also dealt with the matter in CRM-M-12950-2025 (order dated 16.07.2025), wherein it was noticed as under:

"3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the quantity of Etizolam recovered from the petitioner falls under the category of commercial quantity, the recovered quantity of Heroin falls under the category of small quantity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 09.07.2025 passed in CRM- M-24404-2025 and submits that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court concluded that the salts Alprazolam and Etizolam are prescribed for similar ailments and differ only slightly in potency. It was further observed that the commercial quantity notified by the Central Government for Etizolam (2.5 grams) is, in fact, less than the small quantity prescribed for Alprazolam (5 grams), and there is no data suggesting that Etizolam is 40 times more potent than Alprazolam. Copy of order dated 09.07.2025 is taken on record. The relevant excerpt of the said order is reproduced herebelow:

"4. He further contends that the Central Government vide notification bearing No. S.O.1276(E) dated 23.03.2021, Etizolam was brought under the ambit of the NDPS Act. It was specified that 0.05g would constitute to be small quantity while 2.5g would be the commercial quantity in this regard. However, a perusal of the Pre-Review Report presented on Etizolam by the World Health Organisation's Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, at its 37th Meeting (16-20 November, 2015), would indicate that Etizolam is comparable to Alprazolam in its nature and effects, both being derivatives of benzodiazepine. Based on its chemical structure, it is also unlikely to convert Etizolam into a different controlled substance. In fact, the report concludes that nature of possible abuse of Etizolam does not warrant international control. Moreover, there is also a scarcity of empirical data concluding overdose of Etizolam can result in death. While two doses of 0.5mg Etizolam per day would have the same impact as two doses of 0.5mg Alprazolam, the huge difference in the notified commercial quantities for the same is rather curious Controlled Small Quantity Commercial Substance Quantity Alprazolam 5g 100g Etizolam 0.05g 2.5g

5. In spite of the fact that both the notified substances are prescribed to cure the same ailments and have a similar effect, with minor difference in potency, the commercial quantity notified by the Central Government for Etizolam (2.5g) is even lesser than small quantity

prescribed for Alprazolam (5 g). There is no data to even remotely suggest that the potency of Etizolam is 40 times that of Alprazolam

6. With that in view, a study of Section 22 of the NDPS Act is called for-

22. Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances.--

Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any psychotropic substance shall be punishable,--

(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2[one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine .

(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

The mandatory minimum punishment for cases involving commercial quantities is 10 years, which may be extended to 20 years. In view of the nature of Etizolam, such stringent punishment does not satisfy the test of proportionality. The impact of Etizolam and the meagre amount of commercial quantity i.e. 2.5g notified by the Central Government does not align with the gravity of the offence alleged."

Counsel submits that in the cited case, there was a recovery of 2.76 grams of Etizolam, and considering the custody period of 9 months already undergone, the petitioner in that case was granted the concession of bail. Relying on the strength of the aforesaid bail order, Mr. P.S. Sekhon, learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for grant of bail, submitting that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly two years (i.e., one year, eleven months, and sixteen days)."

11. In view of the aforesaid observations, and considering that

petitioner has not misused the concession of interim bail granted by this

Court and has duly surrendered before the jail authorities in compliance

with the directions issued, coupled with the fact that he is a first-time

offender, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner deserves

an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

petitioner's right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed for an indefinite

period.

12. Considering the totality of circumstances, and the

facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed

here above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail