Rajiv Kumar alias Gaurav alias Mannu v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-24829-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-24829-2025 Reserved on: 07.07.2025 Pronounced on: 24.07.2025 Rajiv Kumar alias Gaurav alias Mannu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate and Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 305 21.12.2022 A Division, 22(C) of NDPS Act (offence Amritsar u/s 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B, 34 IPC added later on) 1. 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. Per paragraph 30 of the bail petition, status report as well as custody certificate dated 04.07.2025, petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 21.12.2022 based on secret information, the Police seized 29920 intoxicant tablets from the possession of accused-Nishan Sharma. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. During the custodial interrogation of the accused-Nishan Sharma, he disclosed the petitioner as one of the accomplices in drug peddling; based on the disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an accused by incorporating S. 29 of the NDPS Act. 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. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 2 CRM-M-24829-2025 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 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. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. It would be appropriate to refer to following portion of the reply, which reads as follows:- “The role of the petitioner 24. That the deponent humbly submits that the present petitioner Rajiv Kumar @ Gaurav @ Mannu was involved in drug peddling. He used to purchase intoxicant tablets etc. from co-accused Nishan Sharma and used to sell the same further. The intoxicant tablets recovered in this case from the co-accused Nishan Sharma were to be delivered to the present petitioner Rajiv Kumar @ Gaurav @ Mannu as he had already given Rs.60,000/- in advance to the co-accused Nishan Sharma.” REASONING: 7. 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 put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8. Per the custody certificate dated 04.07.2025, the petitioner has been in custody for 02 years 06 months & 08 days in this FIR. 9. 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. 10. 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 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 3 CRM-M-24829-2025 attracted when the three conditions are fulfilled, (a). (b). (c) The custody of more than two years and six months and the delay was not attributable to the accused. The trial is at an initial stage. The petitioner is the first offender. 11. Considering the quantity involved and the pre-trial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. 12. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 13. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. CONDITIONS: 14. 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/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. 15. 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) 16. 17.
Legal Reasoning
This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 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. 18. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detection squad 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 ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 4 CRM-M-24829-2025 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. 19. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court holds 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.” 20. 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 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.” 21. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner’s behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 22. 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. 23. ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the CRM-M-24829-2025 case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 5 24. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner 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. 25. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 24.07.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 5