CRM-M/35129/2026 of SAJID @ SAZID Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 3 September 2026

REEMA SAINI

The driver who ried to turn back at high speed, lost balance and fell. He was apprehended and disclosed his name as Sajid. 260 grams smack with polythene was recovered from his conscious possession besides a motor cycle without number plate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody .w.e.f 27.07.2025 i.e. for a period of more than one year. Section 50 of NDPS Act was violated in the case as personal search was not conducted by empowered officer, in terms of directions of this Court in Joginder Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM No.5074 of 2019 decided on 28.05.2019. It was argued that 260 grams included weight of polythene, which was required to be excluded. There was possibility of error in the weighment as the quantity was marginally above commercial quantity. It was further argued that the recovery memos prepared during the course of investigation, all bore FIR number, while as per case set up, ruqa for registration of FIR was sent after the recovery was effected, indicating that alleged recovery did not take place in the manner stated, creating doubts in prosecution version. Investigation of the case was complete. Petitioner, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. In support of his submission, learned counsel refers to Jaswinder Singh @ Jass v. State of Punjab, 2020 Law Finder (P&H) 3786, Pritam Kaur @ Bawi v. State of Pufnjab, 2020 Law Finder (P&H) 545, Salinder Singh @ Shinda v. State of Punjab, 2022(1) Law Herald 87, Ajay Kumar @ Nannu v. State of Punjab, 2021(1) DC (Narcotics) 69, Ajay Malik v. State of U.T., Chandigarh, 2022(1) Law Herald 87, Didar Singh @ Dara v. State of Punjab, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337, Mustkeen @ Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 REEMA SAINI

AIR (SC) (Crl.) 1683, Munish Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2022(2) Law Herald 1253, Ramesh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2026 NCPHHC 109516, Ishu Singh @ Baru v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-1415 of 2022 decided on 28.02.2023, Monu @ Monu Sharma @ Akash v. State of Haryana, CRM-M- 8289 of 2023, decided on 22.02.2023 andShariful Islam @ Sarif v. State of West Bengal, 2022 SCC online SC 2069.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting that in no circumstance, the polythene could weigh 10 grams. The quantity of contraband recovered was commercial and the rigorous of Section 37 NDPS Act were attracted. Petitioner was a habitual offender and there were six cases registered against him. The motor cycle he was using was also without number plate. Petitioner, therefore, did not deserve the concession of regular bail.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Versus Balraj Singh @ Billa, 2026 INSC 618, while referring to its previous decisions, has observed as under:

14. As rightly submitted by the appellant State, this Court, in State of Meghalaya V. Lalrintluanga Sailo and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 1751 while setting aside the bail granted by the High Court therein had held that consideration on the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is essential by the concerned Court. It was observed: “5. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, while considering the application of bail, the court is bound to ensure the satisfaction of conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)of the NDPS Act. The said provision reads thus: REEMA SAINI

“37. (1)(b)(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.” … … …

7. In the decision in Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira [Collector of Customsv. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 834] , the three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)as also Section 37(1)(b)(ii)of the NDPS Act, with regard to the expression “reasonable grounds” used therein. This Court held that it means something more than the prima facie grounds and that it contemplates substantial and probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held that the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision would require existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. … …

10. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)of the NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view of this Court that while considering the application for bail made by an accused involved in an offence under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders on such applications.” (emphasis supplied)

15. To the similar effect, this Court in State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu 2024 SCC online SC 4074 reiterated that satisfaction with the conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining a prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs.[See also: Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu (Supra)] REEMA SAINI

16. In similar circumstances, this Court in Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade 2025 SCC online SC 3049 observed that the mandatory nature of Section 37 cannot be dispensed with: “12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafficking in an organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter.

13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has been charged with offences punishable with ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time.” (emphasis supplied)

6. Identical were the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora 2026 SCC online SC 671 and Union of India Versus Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, 2025 SCC online SC 3049.

7. The provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory in nature and recording of finding as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non. Given the allegations against the petitioner and his criminal back ground, this Court is not in a position to record satisfaction that there are reasonable ground for believing that petitioner is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Prima-facie, the Court is of the view that petitioner is involved in drug trafficking, therefore, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS is made out. The period of custody undergone by him can be said to be substantial considering the punishment provided under Section 21(C) and Section REEMA SAINI

27(A) of NDPS Act. Non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act is to be considered by the Trial Court, on conclusion of trial. In no circumstances, the weight of a polythene bag can be 10/11 grams.

8. Dismissed.

9. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

JUDGE 03.09.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

REEMA SAINI