Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa v. State of Punjab (2025) — Punjab & Haryana High Court

Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa v. State of Punjab (2025) — Punjab & Haryana High Court 

📌 Key Judgment: Small Quantity Drug Possession is Bailable

Case: Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa v. State of Punjab (2025) — Punjab & Haryana High Court

⚖️ What the Court Ruled:

Small quantity drug offences under the NDPS Act are bailable; the strict non-bailable provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply only to commercial quantity offences.

In this case, the court granted anticipatory bail to the accused who was alleged to have been involved with a small quantity (e.g., 1 gram of heroin).

The court held that if an offence carries a maximum punishment of less than three years, it falls under the bailable category as per the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and thus bail cannot be denied merely because it’s an NDPS case.

🧠 Court’s Reasoning:

Section 37 of NDPS Act doesn’t explicitly make all NDPS offences non-bailable — it is only clearly applicable to commercial quantities.

The small quantity offences carry relatively lighter punishments (usually up to 1 year and/or fine), and thus should logically be treated as bailable.

Arrest or refusal of bail solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement is not permissible under law, especially where recoveries are small and evidence is weak.

🪪 Legal Impact:

This decision aligns with similar directions from other High Courts (e.g., Allahabad, Kerala, Bombay) that small quantity drug offences are bailable.

It helps avoid unnecessary incarceration of first-time or minor offenders where the harm and statutory penalty are limited.

🧾 General Points on Quantity Categories (NDPS Act)

Though this isn’t a High Court judgment itself, the legal structure below helps understand the context in which the High Court applies its reasoning:

Category Typical Definition Punishment & Bail
Small Quantity Less than threshold specified in law (e.g., very minor amounts of controlled substances) Usually up to 1 year imprisonment and/or small fine – treated as bailable in light of the High Court judgment.
Intermediate Quantity Between small and commercial Greater punishment (up to 10 years) – bail depends on court discretion.
Commercial Quantity Above set threshold Severe punishment (10+ years) and strict non-bailable regime (under Section 37).
🧑‍⚖️ Practical Takeaways

✔️ If you’re charged under the NDPS Act with only a small quantity of drugs, Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that you are entitled to bail and such cases should be treated differently from large trafficking cases.

✔️ Commercial quantity cases (large amounts) remain non-bailable unless the twin bail conditions under Section 37 are satisfied.

✔️ This ruling emphasizes proportionality — minor possession should not automatically attract severe bail restrictions meant for serious trafficking

📘 1. Section 8(c) NDPS Act — Prohibition

This is the basic charging section.

👉 It prohibits:

• possession

• sale

• purchase

• transport

• storage

• consumption

of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances except for medical or scientific purposes.

🔹 Important:
Section 8(c) does not prescribe punishment.
Punishment always comes from sections like 20, 21, 22, etc.

📕 2. Section 20(b)(2)(A) — Small Quantity (Cannabis/Ganja/Charas)

This is the punishment provision when the substance is cannabis and the quantity is small.

⚖️ Punishment:

• Rigorous imprisonment up to 1 year, OR

• Fine up to ₹10,000, OR

• Both

🧠 Punjab & Haryana High Court position:

• Since the maximum punishment is only 1 year,

• Section 37 NDPS (stringent bail conditions) does NOT apply

• Offence is treated as bailable in nature.

📌 HC has repeatedly held:

Small quantity cases are not meant to be treated at par with commercial quantity trafficking cases.

📙 3. Section 29 NDPS Act — Conspiracy / Abetment

This section applies when:

• Two or more persons conspire, or

• Someone abets the commission of an NDPS offence.

🔑 Key Legal Point:

• Section 29 does NOT stand alone

• Punishment under Section 29 is the same as the main offence

👉 So if the main offence is under 20(b)(2)(A) (small quantity):

• Section 29 also carries only up to 1 year punishment

• It cannot convert a small quantity case into a non-bailable one

🧑‍⚖️ Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified:

• Merely adding Section 29 does not justify denial of bail

• Especially when:

  • recovery is small quantity

  • no independent evidence of conspiracy

  • implication is based only on disclosure statements

🧾 Combined Effect of Sections 8(c) + 20(b)(2)(A) + 29

📌 Punjab & Haryana High Court Key Observations (in multiple cases)

• NDPS Act is stringent only for traffickers, not minor offenders

• Personal liberty cannot be curtailed for offences punishable below 3 years

• Disclosure statements alone are weak evidence

• Courts must apply principle of proportionality

🧠 Practical Use (for bail / argument)

If your case involves:

• Small quantity

• Sections 8(c), 20(b)(2)(A), 29

• No recovery from accused / only co-accused disclosure

👉 You can strongly argue:

• Offence is bailable

• Section 37 NDPS is inapplicable

• Continued custody is illegal and unjustified