MAHINDER SH ER SHAH v. STATE OF PU F PUNJAB
Case Details
CRM-M-17717 17717-2025 1 1 318 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH CRM-M-17717-2025 Reserved on: 07.05-2025 Pronounced on:19.05. 2025 MAHINDER SH ER SHAH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PU F PUNJAB …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP C OP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Nikhil Batta, Advocate (through vi For the petitioner. ugh video conferencing) Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Rai, DAG, Punj , Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITK HITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 40 03.05.2023 Anaj Mandi, Pati i, Patiala 18/61 and 85 of NDPS Act 1. The petit
Legal Reasoning
e petitioner incarcerated in the FIR caption this captioned above had come up before this Court under Sec er Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraks king Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. Per parag r paragraph 10 of the bail application/custo s the n/custody certificate, the accused has the following crimin criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR N 1. 2. FIR No. 36 234 Offenses Date 12.04.2011 20/61/85 of N 19.10.2019 325/323/34 IP 5 of NDPS Act /34 IPC Police Station GRP, Sirhind Tripuri 3. The fact e facts and allegations are taken from . On from the reply filed by the State. On 03.05.2023, whe 3, when the police officials were on patrol rson patrolling duty, they noticed one person coming on foot foot from railway line side, who on see hrew on seeing the police, flustered and threw backpack and tr and tried to turn away which raised sus some ed suspicion that he was carrying some contraband. Subs d. Subsequently, he was apprised of his righ nder is rights to get his search conducted under Section 50 of ND of NDPS Act. However, he was satisfied gator sfied with the search from the investigator itself. Upon sear n search of the bag thrown by the petitione pium titioner, police recovered 04 kg of opium and he was arres s arrested. The laboratory also tested the con s to the contraband. The Investigator claims to have complied w plied with all the statutory requirements o rPC, ents of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 CRM-M-17717 17717-2025 2 2 1973. 4. 5. The petit e petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the groun e grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. Counsel unsel for the petitioner on instructions su n, if ons submits that he has no objection, if while granting b nting bail, this Court imposes any stringe that tringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall shall not indulge himself in the offen l or offence involving the commercial or intermediate qua te quantity or the offence which falls unde Act. s under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further subm submits that if the petitioner involves him e the es himself in the said offences, where the sentence impose mposed is more than 07 years, he has no ob ation no objection if the State files application for cancellation lation of his bail. He further contends that ause s that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible in family. ible injustice to the petitioner and his family 6. The State e State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to t ers to the reply. ING: REASONING 7. As per pa per para 10 of reply, the weight and name o ame of drug is 4 kg of opium. 8. The quan e quantity allegedly involved in this case is igors case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the N f the NDPS Act apply in the present case. T twin case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in put in place by the Legislature under Sectio Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. The petit e petitioner is entitled to bail because for th ntity for the same drug and when the quantity involved was ei as either more or closer to the quantity s n’ble ntity seized in the present FIR, Hon’ble Supreme Court Court had granted bail on prolonged c icial ged custody in the following judicial precedents: 10. In Md. T Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West 024, f West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds holds, [2]. The al conducted were arrest The allegations are that upon receipt of a se ucted a raid in which the petitioner and t arrested and 4 kgs., 920 gms of opium late of a secret information, the police and the co-accused Rabiul Alam m latex was seized. [4]. It is charges, th has been be examine It is not in dispute that after filing of c ges, the trial has commenced but only exa been completed. However, there are 12 wit xamined by the prosecution. g of chargesheet and framing of ly examination-in-chief of P.W.1 12 witnesses, who are proposed to [5]. It may petitioner h that rega hearing too trial is like criminal a custody. T useful purp It may be mentioned that the High Court ioner has directed for conclusion of trial w regardless thereto, the trial has notbeen ing took place for the last 2/3 dates. That is likely to take some reasonable time. The inal antecedents. He has already spent o ody. The continued incarceration of the p ul purpose. Court while declining bail to the trial within one year. But it seems otbeen expedited as no effective . That being so, the conclusion of e. The petitioner does not have any ent one year and six months in the petitioner will not serve any Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRM-M-17717 17717-2025 3 3 [6]. Taking and the fac are satisfie Act can be Taking into consideration the period spent the fact that the petitioner does not have a satisfied that the conditionsprescribed und can be relaxed at this stage. spent by the petitioner in custody have any criminal antecedents, we d under Section 37 of the NDPS 11. Given th ven this, the criminal antecedents are also g the e also not legal grounds for denying the rigors of S. 37 of . 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 12. Per the cu r the custody certificate dated 04.05.2025, th IR is , the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of 01 year, 11 mo , 11 months and 28 days. 13. The pro e prolonged incarceration, generally mi cious ly militates against the most precious fundamental righ tal right guaranteed under Article 21 of the tion, of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional tional liberty must override the statutory i) of the NDPS Act1. 37(1)(b)(ii) of th ction atutory embargo created under Section 14. Followin llowing the judicial precedent mentioned a n the oned above, without commenting on the case's merits, rits, and considering the petitioner’s pre s pre-trial custody, weight of the drugs coupled with the ith the other factors peculiar to this case, s not case, further pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this t this stage. However, this order shall co it is all come into force from the time it is uploaded on this n this Court's official webpage. IONS: CONDITIONS 15. Given ab ven above, provided the petitioner is not , the is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall b shall be released on bail in the FIR captione onds ptioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfactio sfaction of the concerned Court and due t arest due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate istrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting th must ting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that i d that if the accused fails to appear, such sur ch surety can produce the accused. 16. While fu hile furnishing a personal bond, the petit wing petitioner shall mention the following personal identific entification details: AADHAR number 1. AA Passport number (If available) and 2. Pas con considers it appropriate or considers the Mobile number (If available) 3. Mo 4. E- -Mail id (If available) and when the attesting officer/court rs the accused a flight risk. 17. 18. This orde is order is subject to the petitioner’s comply
Legal Reasoning
omplying with the following terms. The petit e petitioner shall abide by all statutory bon e the ry bond conditions and appear before the concerned Cour Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner sh ence, ner shall not tamper with the evidence, 1 Supreme Court of 13 July 2023 urt of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha d on Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRM-M-17717 17717-2025 4 4 influence, browb browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or , any en, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Polic Police officials, or any other person and person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of ces of the case or dissuade them from discl r the disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 19. Given the ven the background of allegations against th ount ainst the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the m the members of society, and incapacitating f the citating the accused would be one of the primary options ptions until the filing of the closure ittal. sure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it ntly, it would be appropriate to restrict [This strict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is bei is being imposed based on the prepondera bility onderance of the evidence of probability and not of evide evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reason ot to onable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as ed as an intermediate sanction]. Given th d the ven the nature of the allegations and the other circumstan umstances peculiar to this case, the petit ons, petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and am nd ammunition, if any, along with the arm ority e arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen da een days of release from prison and inform ance. nform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subjec subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the p enew , the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them m them in case of acquittal in this case, pr nder se, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned ru ned rules. Restricting firearms would insti their d instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and soc nd society; it would also restrain the accu esses e accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the ing the offense. 20. The cond e conditions mentioned above imposed by form ed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the a the accused does not repeat the offense an drug nse and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Moham Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Del Writ of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Crimin riminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decide udge decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’bl on’ble Supreme Court holds that “The ba ourt he bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only h only have a nexus to the purpose that th o be hat they seek to serve but must also be proportional to th l to the purpose of imposing them. The co tions he courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the nce the liberty of the accused and the neces g so, e necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that w that would result in the deprivation of right f rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 21. In Md. T Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West 024, f West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds ying t holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petition etitioner is found involved in such like offe bail e offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him to him today will liable to be withdrawn and e the n and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequ onsequences.” 22. This bail bail is conditional, and the foundationa ner tional condition is that if the petitioner repeats the offen offence where the quantity involved is m ate, is more than half of the intermediate, Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRM-M-17717 17717-2025 5 5 or commercial, ial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the file the NDPS Act, then the State shall file an application f ion for cancellation of this bail before ave fore the Trial Court, which shall have discretion to can o cancel this bail. 23. Any obse y observation made hereinabove is neithe the neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor its nor shall the trial Court advert to these co hese comments. 24. A certifie certified copy of this order is not required ocate uired for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner titioner can download the order from the Co est it the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If opy. If needed, the attesting officer can verif e the n verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded cop ed copy to attest bonds. 25. Petition a tition allowed in terms mentioned above. Al stand ve. All pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
disposed of. 19.05.2025 renubala Whether speakin Whether reportab peaking/reasoned: Yes No. eportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5