Sunny v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-29981-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29981-2025 Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 Jatinder Singh @ Sunny ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Sandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 89 Dated 04.08.2024 Police Station City District Jalandhar Nakodar, Sections 22(b) of NDPS Act (charge framed u/s 22(c) 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. Per paragraph 19 of the bail application and paragraph 11 of status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. FIR No. 97 29 139 74 31 Date 25.09.2019 29.03.2020 30.11.2022 21.06.2024 28.03.2024 Offenses 22 of NDPS Act 21/29 of NDPS Act 22 of NDPS Act 22 of NDPS Act 22(C) of NDPS Act Police Station City Nakodar City Nakodar City Nakodar City Nakodar City Nakodar 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 04.08.2024, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 150 tablets containing Etizolam from the petitioner’s possession. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023. 4. 5. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. 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. Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-29981-2025 6. 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 an application to revoke this bail before the concerned 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. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. REASONING: 8. As per paragraph 8 of the status report, the name of the contraband is Etizolam, and
Legal Reasoning
its weight is 15.45 grams. 9. Dealing in 15.45 grams of Etizolam in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Quantity detained Punishable U/s Quantity type Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate Etizolam 15.45 Gram S.22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Commercial 618.00% Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date S.O. 1351 (E) dated 13.03.2019 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1276(E) 3/23/2021 Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh Chemical Name 238ZZC Etizolam ****** 4-(2-Chlorophenyl)-2-ethyl-9-methyl-6H- 2 CRM-M-29981-2025 Small Quantity Commercial Quantity thieno[3,2-f][1,2,4]triazolo[4,3a] [1,4]diazepine < 0.05 Gram > 2.5 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 S.O.1275(E) 3/23/2021 Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name 110ZN Etizolam ****** 4-(2-Chlorophenyl)-2-ethyl-9- methyl-6H-thieno[3,2- f][1,2,4]triazolo[4,3a][1,4]diazepine 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. Per the custody certificate dated 31.08.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is 01 year and 26 days. 12. 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. 13. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases where the quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount seized in the current FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail after prolonged custody, as demonstrated by the following judicial precedent. 14. In Ajay Khatri v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 20-03-2025, SLP (Crl) No. 1228-2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, 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 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-29981-2025 The case of the prosecution is that 6600 Alprazolam Tablets weighing 818.4 grams have been recovered from his possession. He has already undergone more than one year in jail. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer for bail is allowed. 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. Given the 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, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 25,000. 17. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 25,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the “Chief Judicial Magistrate” of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. 18. 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) 19. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 20. 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. Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-29981-2025 21. 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 society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 22. 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.” 23. 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.” 24. 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 concerned having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 25. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-29981-2025 26. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.” 27. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, are
Decision
disposed of. 18.09.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 6