Justin v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-24532-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24532-2025 Reserved on: 10.07.2025 Pronounced on: 29.07.2025 Johnson Amokh Adde @ Justin ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Gaurav Singh Bhatti, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 135 24.12.2022 Satnampura, Phagwara 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act 1.
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. 3. Per paragraph 12 of the status report, the accused has no criminal antecedents. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by State counsel. On 24.12.2002, based on secret information, the Police seized 100 grams of Ice from the possession of the petitioner. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. 6. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-24532-2025 an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Special Judge or Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 7. 8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. As per status report, the weight of contraband is 100 gram ICE and it contains Methamphetamine (Stimulant). 9. Dealing with this contraband is an offence under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name METAMFETAMINE/Methamphetamine/ Ice/ Meth Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 159 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name Small Quantity Commercial Quantity METAMFETAMINE methamphetamine (±)-(S)-N,alpha-dimethylphenethylamine, (+)2methylamino-1-Phenylpropane 2 Gram 50 Gram 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 821(E) 11/14/1985 Sr. No. 19 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 METHAMPHETAMINE CRM-M-24532-2025 Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name (+)-2-Methylamino-1-phenylpropane Disclaimer: You are advised to re-verify all details from the Gazette of India and official notifications 10. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 11. The petitioner is entitled to bail based on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022], decided on 25 Jan 2023. Dheeraj Shukla would be attracted when the three conditions are fulfilled, (a). The custody of more than two years and six months and the delay was not attributable to the accused. (b). The trial is at an initial stage. (c). The petitioner is the first offender. 13. Per the custody certificate dated 09.07.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is 02 years, 06 months and 12 days. 14. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1. 15. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the case's merits, and considering the petitioner’s pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this stage. However, this order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court's official webpage. 16. In Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2025-INSC-30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [8]. In addition to what we held by judgment and order dated 08th July, 2024, we issue the following directions: (i) While granting bail to a foreigner within the meaning of the Act, the concerned court shall issue direction to the State or prosecuting agency, as the case may be, to immediately communicate the order granting bail to the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules who, in turn, shall communicate the order to all concerned authorities including the Civil Authorities. If such information is furnished, it will enable the 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-24532-2025 authorities under the Act, the Rules and the Order to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law; 17. Given the above, the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police is to send a downloaded copy of this order to the Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, framed under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Upon receiving the communication, the concerned Foreign Registration Officer shall notify all relevant authorities, including civil authorities, in accordance with the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Cr.A No. 2814-2815 of 2024, decided on January 6, 2025, Neutral Citation: 2025-INSC-30. 18. Although the Court has granted bail to the accused, the underlying issue remains unresolved, leaving the broader demands of justice unfulfilled. In the interest of fairness and impartiality, further deliberation is essential. 19. Generally, every foreign national entering India does so for a defined purpose and a finite duration. While some may engage in unlawful activities, such as cyber fraud and illicit trafficking of controlled substances, a measured legal response necessitates vigilance at the point of entry rather than the indiscriminate denial of bail. The cornerstone of an effective deterrence mechanism lies in rigorous pre-admission scrutiny, comprehensive background verifications before visa issuance, and the immediate revocation of visas upon credible and substantial allegations. 20. However, when a foreign national faces criminal prosecution within Indian jurisdiction, legal proceedings may tether them to the country, disrupting their academic aspirations, familial responsibilities, commercial enterprises, and personal liberties. Justice delayed is justice denied, but in the context of foreign nationals, justice prolonged is justice misplaced. Delayed trials and resultant legal limbo engender uncertainty in these individuals, compounding their fears within an unfamiliar jurisdiction and an unaccustomed legal system. Recognizing the far-reaching repercussions of protracted litigation, it is incumbent upon the judiciary to ensure the expeditious resolution of such cases, whether the accused is in custody or released on bail. Accordingly, this Court directs the Trial Court to prioritize and accelerate adjudication in these matters, balancing the necessities of due process with the principles of swift and faultless justice. 21. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-24532-2025 22. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner 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)
Legal Reasoning
23. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 24. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner 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. 25. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, 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 petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison 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. 26. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-24532-2025 27. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 28. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the Special Judge/ Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 29. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 30. A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download the order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded copy to attest bonds. 31. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
disposed of. 29.07.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.30 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 6