Suraj v. Union Of India Through Narcotics Control Bureau

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.110 Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 SURAJ

...Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. R.K. Kachura, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Vinayak Atri, Ms. Indu Bala Sharma and Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocates for the respondent-NCB. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing Crime No. 16 dated 14.07.2025, under Sections 8, 18, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Notification No. 61), registered at Police Station NCB, Chandigarh.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the prosecution alleges recovery of 0.198 kilograms (198 grams) of opium in the present case from a parcel bearing AWB No. 3893391740, which was destined abroad. The case of the prosecution is that the said parcel was booked by the accused Suraj in connivance with officials of the DHO office, as allegedly established from CCTV footage. It is further alleged that the petitioner is the prime accused and is involved in international smuggling of narcotic substances. However,

no direct recovery has been effected from the personal possession of the petitioner; rather, the recovery pertains to the parcel in question. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged recovery of 0.198 kilograms of opium falls within the category of intermediate/noncommercial quantity, and therefore the rigours applicable to commercial quantity are not attracted. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.07.2025 and has clean antecedents. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, as the prosecution proposes to examine several witnesses and documentary evidence. Therefore, keeping in view the period of custody and the nature of recovery, the petitioner prays that he be released on regular bail.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the NCB has opposed the bail application on the ground that serious and grave allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that it has been established from the CCTV footage that the petitioner used to book the parcel containing contraband substance. The illegal smuggling of such drugs and substances has led to drug abuse in society, particularly among the younger generation. It is further alleged that the petitioner is involved in international smuggling of drugs, thereby causing defame to India, and that the parcel in question was intended to be sent to Canada. It is thus argued that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency and his bail application is liable to be dismissed.

4.

After considering the rival contentions, the Court has observed that though the recovery effected is of non-commercial quantity, the manner in which the recovery has been effected and the surrounding circumstances

cannot be ignored. The contraband was recovered from a parcel booked for delivery abroad, and the prosecution has prima facie linked the petitioner to the booking of the said parcel through CCTV footage and other material collected during investigation. The allegations pertain to organized and international smuggling activities.

5.

Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, and the same is hereby dismissed.

6.

However, anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 7.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 24.02.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No