PARTAP SING SINGH v. STATE OF HA F HARYANA
Case Details
CRM-M-24680 24680-2025 1 248 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND AT CHANDIGAR IGARH AND HARYANA CRM-M-24680-2025 Date of decision:19.05.2025 PARTAP SING SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HA F HARYANA …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CH P CHITKARA Present: Mr. S Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the petitio petitioner. Ms. H Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana. **** **** ANOOP CHITK HITKARA, J. FIR No. 38 Dated 28.02.2022 Police Station Bhattu Kalan, Di Fatehabad, Haryan n, District aryana Sections 15(b) and 27-A of NDPS Act of NDPS Act 1. The petitio petitioner incarcerated in the FIR caption this aptioned 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 paragr paragraph 16 of the bail application, the pe inal the petitioner declares he has no criminal antecedents. How ts. However, in para 13 E of the reply, the inal , the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:
Facts
Sr. No. FIR N FIR No. Date/Year Offenses Police Station 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 107 326 253 426 245 378 203 350 542 2016 2021 2021 2022 2023 2021 2020 2021 2019 IPC 147/302 IPC S Act 15 NDPS Act S Act 15 NDPS Act Gogameri Ellenabad Ellenabad 8/15/29 NDP NDPS Act Tibbi (Rajasthan) 8/15 NDPS Ac PS Act 8/15 NDPS Ac PS Act 8/15 NDPS Ac PS Act Rawatsar Rawatsar Rawatsar 15/27A NDPS NDPS Act Ellenabad 8/15/25/29 ND /29 NDPS Act Nohar Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 CRM-M-24680 24680-2025 2 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 3. 51 23 22 25 579 73 321 15.01.2018 307/120-B an B and 3/25/27 of Nohar Arms Act 21.03.2018 379 IPC 21.03.2018 379 IPC pura, Bhanipura, PS Churu (Rajasthan) PS Churu (Rajasthan) ipura Bhanipura 31.07.2012 19/54 of Raja f Rajasthan Excise Nohar 2010 Act, 19/54 of Raja Act, f Rajasthan Excise Nohar 4 25.03.2015 14/19/54 of Rajasthan Nohar of Excise Act 15.05.2016 Rajasthan Exc an Excise Act Nohar The facts a facts and allegations are taken from the repl , reply filed by the State. On 28.02.2022, based on a chan chance recovery, the Police seized 15 Kg lastic 5 Kg 100 grams of poppy husk in plastic bag from co-ac accused Pardeep Kumar alias Deepu odial eepu and Baljeet During the custodial interrogation of on of the co-accused, they disclosed that sold that the petitioner-Partap Singh had sold the contraband t band to them at the rate of Rs.2850/- per k have per kg. The Investigator claims to have complied with al with all the statutory requirements of the ND the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. 5. The petitio petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the ground grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. Petitioner's tioner's counsel on instructions submits he nting its he has no objection if while granting bail, this Court i ourt imposes any stringent conditions and l not ns and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself mself in the offence involving the commer diate mmercial or more than 50% intermediate quantity or the o r the offence which falls under Section 19 rther tion 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if t at if the petitioner involves himself in the ce in the said offences, where the sentence imposed is mor s more than 07 years, he has no objectio n for bjection if the State files application for cancellation of h n of his bail and he further contends that ould that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irrevers rreversible injustice to the petitioner and the nd their family. 6. The State’s State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to th s to the reply. ING: REASONING 7. As per par er para 13-A of reply, the weight and nam s of nd name of drug is 15 kg 100 grams of poppy husk. 8. Section ction 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines c ntity ines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the an the quantity specified in the schedule. mall dule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quantity as a qua s a quantity less than the quantity specified . The ecified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quant quantity falls in an undefined category, diate tegory, generally called an intermediate quantity. All se ll sections in the NDPS Act specify an offe and an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sente sentence, depending upon the quantity o rcial ntity of the substance. The commercial Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRM-M-24680 24680-2025 3 quantity mandate andates a minimum sentence of ten years of fine ears of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One h One hundred thousand, and bail is subject 7 of subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. W Act. When the quantity is less than comme n 37 commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Ac PS Act will not attract, and the factors for ence rs for bail become similar to the offence es. regular statutes. 9. The petitio petitioner is entitled to bail because for the ntity for the same drug, and when the quantity involved was eit as either more or closer to the quantity sei n’ble tity seized in the present FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court h ourt has granted bail on prolonged custody ustody in the following judicial precedent: 10. In Shambh hambhulal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, D (Crl) than, Decided on 23-04-2024, SLP (Crl) 16671-2024, Ho 4, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The allega poppy hus he has thre year 2019, dismissed months in allegation against the petitioner is that ther y husk/straw (contraband article) from him as three criminal antecedents relating to the 2019, 2021 & 2022. The third bail appli issed by the High Court. He has already un ths in jail. at there is a recovery of 60 kgs of om him and prior to this incident, to the NDPS Act registered in the l application of the petitioner was ady undergone about 1 year and 8 Heard learn
Legal Reasoning
Considerin sidering the fact that the contraband article i has three c three criminal antecedents but since he has b 8 months, we are of the opinion that a case and 8 mon ioner. petitioner. rticle is a poppy straw although he e has been in jail for the last 1 year a case of bail is made out for the 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 the custody certificate, the petitioner's cus 7 r's custody in this FIR is of 01 years, 07 months and 06 days. 13. The prolo prolonged incarceration, generally mili cious y 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. Following owing the judicial precedent mentioned a the ned above, without commenting on the case's merits, rits, and considering the petitioner’s pre the pre-trial custody, the weight of the contraband, cou coupled with the other factors pecul trial peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is n ion is not justified at this stage, subject to th . t to the terms and conditions of this order. 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 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRM-M-24680 24680-2025 4 However, this or this order shall take effect from the time it ficial time it is uploaded to this Court's official webpage. IONS: CONDITIONS 15. Given abov n above, provided the petitioner is not requ ioner t required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released leased on bail in the FIR captioned above o the above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of th n of the concerned Court and due to unav Ilaqa o unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or du duty Magistrate. Before accepting the s st be g the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if th at if the accused fails to appear, such surety surety can produce the accused. 16. While furn le furnishing a personal bond, the petiti 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. This order order is subject to the petitioner’s complyin mplying with the following terms. 18. The petitio petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond e the y bond conditions and appear before the concerned Cour Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner sh ence, ner shall not tamper with the evidence, 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 b n the background of allegations against the nt to nst the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the mem members of society, detection squad and i ld be and incapacitating the accused would be one of the prima primary options until the filing of the closu ittal. e closure 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 reasonable 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. Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRM-M-24680 24680-2025 5 20. The condit conditions mentioned above imposed by th form d 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 the Hon he Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The b ourt The 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 al 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. Taj d. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Be SLP est Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds ying holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petition etitioner is found involved in such like offe f 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 i bail is conditional, and the foundational ner ional condition is that if the petitioner commits any off y offence under the NDPS Act, where t an ere the quantity involved is more than half of the inter intermediate or commercial quantity, or the ty, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, then then the State shall apply for cancella rial cellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which sh h shall be eligible, authorized, and shal his shall have the discretion to cancel this bail. 23. Any observ observation made hereinabove is neither an ase's ther an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall t shall the trial Court advert to these commen mments. 24. A certified rtified copy of this order is not required for e for red for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can ner can download the order from the Court' t as a Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If nee If needed, the attesting officer can verify e the verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded cop ed copy to attest bonds. tion allowed in terms mentioned above. All stand ve. All pending applications, if any, stand
Arguments
rd learned counsel for the petitioner and the nd the respondent State.
Decision
25. Petition all disposed of. 19.05.2025 renubala (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Whether speakin Whether reportab peaking/reasoned: Yes No. eportable: Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5