Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner applied for regular bail in connection with FIR No.152 dated 27.2.2019 registered under Section 20 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Model Town, District Panipat. The allegation was that the petitioner was found in possession of 750 grams of charas.

The court noted that the quantity alleged (750 grams) falls within the intermediate quantity category (i.e., less than the commercial quantity), and therefore, the "fetters of Section 37 NDPS Act shall not be attracted" (as recorded in the opinion). The learned State counsel informed the court that a challan has been presented (referenced as CRM-M-27867-2019) and that the petitioner is not wanted in any other case.

Disposition pronounced orally by GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. on 9.7.2019. Advocate for petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Malik. Additional A.G., Haryana assisted by SI Rajpal: Mr. Ashok Singh Choudhary.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in FIR No.152 dated 27.2.2019 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
2. Whether the alleged possession of 750 grams of charas—an intermediate quantity—renders the petitioner ineligible for bail due to the operation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (the opinion states that the fetters of Section 37 are not attracted in such circumstances).

Arguments of the Parties

State's Arguments

• The challan has already been presented (document/reference CRM-M-27867-2019).
• The petitioner is not wanted in any other case.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific submissions by the petitioner or other arguments beyond the brief attendance and representation noted on record.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning as recorded in the opinion proceeds in concise steps grounded in the facts before it:

• The alleged quantity of contraband (750 grams of charas) is classified in the opinion as an intermediate quantity—explicitly noted to be less than the commercial quantity.
• On that basis the opinion states that the fetters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to this case (the opinion records this conclusion without expanding on Section 37's statutory framework).
• The learned State counsel informed the court that the challan has been presented and that the petitioner is not wanted in any other case—facts which the court treated as relevant to the question of continuing detention and risk of absconding or interference with the investigation.
• Balancing these factual circumstances, the court concluded that continuing the petitioner's detention would not serve any fruitful purpose and that release on regular bail was appropriate.

The analysis is concise and fact-focused: the intermediate quantity classification, the presentation of the challan, and the absence of any other cases in which the petitioner is wanted formed the factual and legal basis for granting bail.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Implications:

• The immediate consequence is the petitioner's release on regular bail upon compliance with the specified bond requirements.
• The opinion is a case-specific order applying the court's assessment of the facts (intermediate quantity, challan presented, no other cases) to permit bail; the text does not announce or rely upon any cited precedent nor does it articulate any new legal principle beyond its application to these facts.