Monu v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-27928-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27928-2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 Anil @ Monu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Vishavjeet S. Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 337 31.07.2024 Sadar Fatehabad, 15(B), 27A of NDPS Act District Fatehabad 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. A perusal of the petition reveals that petitioner has not mentioned his criminal antecedents. However, as per custody certificate dated 25.05.2025, the following cases are pending against the petitioner: Sr. No. FIR Date/Year Offences Police Station 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 222 2019 395, 397, 342, 406 IPC and 25/54/59 of A.Act Sadar Sirsa, Sirsa 784 2018 25/54/59 of A.Act Sadar Hisar, Hisar 37 2017 147, 149, 307, 341, 427, 448, 506 IPC Uklana, Hisar 1078 24.10.2018 147, 148, 323, 324, 452, 506 IPC Sadar Hisar, Hisar 412 220 2021 2019 42 Prisons Act Civil Lines, Hisar, 147, 149, 323, 341, 427, 506, 325 IPC Sadar Hisar, Hisar 406 25.08.2023 147, 149, 323, 325, 341, 379-B, Narnaund, Hisar JYOTI 2025.05.27 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-27928-2025 2 506, 385, 120-B 307, 201 IPC 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, Fast Track under NDPS Act, Fatehabad. On 31.07.2024, based on secret information, the Police seized 39.66 kg poppy husk from the possession of co-accused Kuldeep Kumar and Anil Kumar (petitioner). The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS 2023. 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. The State’s counsel opposes bail on instructions. REASONING: 6. Given the quantity the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case. 7. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity 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. 8. 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. 9. The pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, per paragraph 4 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 31.01.2025. Per the custody certificate dated 25.05.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 03 months & 29 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial 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 2025.05.27 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-27928-2025 3 custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and evidence, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 10. 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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on the official webpage of this Court. CONDITIONS: 11. 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. 12. 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) 13. 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. 14. 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 JYOTI 2025.05.27 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-27928-2025 4 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. 15. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any similar offence, offence u/s 19/24/27A of NDPS Act or the offence in which sentence is more than seven years, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail. 16. 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. 17. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 26.05.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: JYOTI 2025.05.27 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4