Mani and another v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-3428-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3428-2025 Reserved on: 03.04.2025 Pronounced on: 29.04.2025 Mani and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate and Ms. Shivani Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 241 30.11.2024 City Budhlada, Distt. Mansa 20, 21, 22, 27, 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 111 and 223 of BNS, 2023 1.
Facts
The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. As per paragraph 8 of the status report, the accused Mani has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 11.08.2019 11.08.2020 15.11.2020 10.05.2021 09.06.2023 18.10.2023 143 135 225 60 30 204 Police Station Offenses City Budhlada 21/61/85 of NDPS Act City Budhlada 21/61/85 of NDPS Act City Budhlada 21/61/85 of NDPS Act 21/25/61/85 of NDPS Act City Budhlada City Budhlada 21-A/61/85 of NDPS Act City Budhlada 21-A/61/85 of NDPS Act 3. The accused Sonu Ram has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. FIR No. Dated 84 138 26 127 80 09.07.2018 02.08.2019 09.02.2021 16.08.2023 13.04.2024 Offenses 20/61/85 of NDPS Act 21/61/85 of NDPS Act 153, 174, 147 IPC 21-A/61/85 of NDPS Act 21-A/61/85 of NDPS Act Police Station City Budhlada City Budhlada GRP Fatehabad City Budhlada City Budhlada 4. The facts and allegations are being taken from status report dated 15.02.2025 filed by the State. On 30.11.2024, a secret information was received qua the involvement of JYOTI 2025.04.29 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-3428-2025 accused person in drug peddling. On 01.12.2024, a raid was conducted by the police party. At the time of raid, accused persons namely, Pawan Singh and Ranga Ram were arrested with 45 intoxicating capsules containing Pregabalin, 60 intoxicating capsules and 280 grams of Ganja were recovered from them respectively. In addition to that, 150 grams of Ganja was effected from co-accused Dharma. The allegations against the petitioners are that they and remaining accused are members of a gang of drug peddlers and said gang is being operated by accused Lachho Devi. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submit that they would have no objection in case any stringent conditions this Court might put upon the petitioners including surrender of fire arms, and in case, petitioners repeat the offence, where the sentence prescribes 07 years or more, the State shall file an application for cancellation of bail. He further contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family. 6. 7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report dated 28.02.2025. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report dated 28.02.2025, which read as follows: “4. A. The role of the petitioners. From the investigation proceedings, it was ascertained by the answering deponent that all the accused persons including the petitioners had formed a gang of drug peddlers, out of which some gang members are engaged in procurement of drugs, some keep vigilance so as to easement in drug paddling and some are engaged in supply of drugs. Further, petitioners Mani son of Tittar Singh and Sonu Ram @ Sony son of Wazir Singh are stated to be one of the members of the drug paddlers and the said gang is being operated by accused Lachho Devi as gang leader. 5. B. The evidence against the petitioners. From the investigation proceedings, it was ascertained by the answering deponent that as per the information given by the secret informer petitioners Mani son of Tittar Singh and Sonu Ram @ Sony son of Wazir Singh are stated to be one of the members of the Gang dealing in the drug paddlers and the said gang is being operated by accused Lachho Devi. The call detail reports of the accused persons namely Lachho Devi (Mobile No.98159-xxxxx, 90015-xxxxx), Pawan Kumar (Mobile No. 99155-xxxxx), Ranga Ram (Mobile No. 86997-xxxxx) have been obtained from dated 01.11.2024 to 09.12.2024 and from the CDR's it was revealed that Mani (presently petitioner no. 1 in this petition) was regularly in touch from his mobile number 98766-xxxxx with other co-accused of the above mentioned case i.e. Pawan Kumar on his mobile no. 99155-xxxxx. 2 JYOTI 2025.04.29 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-3428-2025 During the police interrogation from accused Pawan Kumar, he had made his disclosure statement with the IO under section 23(2) BSA and in the light of his disclosure statement and on his demarcation 03 strips of Pregabalin capsules IP Signore, each strip containing 15 capsules, total 45 intoxicating capsules were recovered. It was further disclosed by accused Pawan Singh that he had brought these intoxicating capsules from accused Lachho Devi (group leader) and mother of Mani (Petitioner No.1) further from the CDR's it was revealed that Pawan Kumar and Lachho Devi both are in touch with each other from their above mentioned mobile numbers. As such, role of the petitioners is duly established, hence present case/FIR has been rightly registered against the petitioners.” REASONING: 8. There is sufficient evidence to connect the petitioners with the co-accused, but given the quantity involved and nothing was received from petitioners, further given the undertaking by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no objection in case any stringent conditions this Court might put upon the petitioners including surrender of fire arms, and in case the petitioners repeat the offence where the sentence prescribed is seven years or more, then the State files an application for cancellation of bail, as such, they are entitled to bail. 9. As concerned for the involvement in drug trafficking, no recovery or activity of the petitioners with the drug peddlers is available on record which are sufficient grounds to grant bail to the petitioners. 10. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case. 11. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All sections in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes. 12. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Legal Reasoning
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but JYOTI 2025.04.29 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-3428-2025 this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre- trial incarceration. 13. The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or even to frame the charges; however, it is insufficient for the purpose of bail. 14. Given the penal provisions invoked, the legal admissibility of evidence collected against the petitioners, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 15. Given the above, without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners make a case for anticipatory bail. 16. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 17. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioners shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 18. The bail order is subject to the petitioners’ complying with the following terms. 19. The petitioners are directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioners shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioners shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 20. JYOTI 2025.04.29 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. The petitioners shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the 4 CRM-M-3428-2025 concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 21. Given the background of allegations against the petitioners, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 22. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioners notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 23. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioners are found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioners are bound to face the necessary consequences.” 24. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioners indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail. 25. JYOTI 2025.04.29 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the 5 CRM-M-3428-2025 case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 26. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 27. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 29.04.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.04.29 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 6