Satta v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-32979-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32979-2025 Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 Satpal Singh @ Satta ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 65 Dated 03.05.2025 Police Station Badhni District Moga Kalan, Sections 22, 27-B, 29 of NDPS Act and 111(2B) of BNS 1.
Facts
The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Per paragraph 14 of the bail application and paragraph 8(G) of status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. FIR No. Date 41 68 54 130 13.05.2024 10.12.2023 15.05.2018 04.12.2013 Offenses 21/25/29 of NDPS Act 21 of NDPS Act 21/22/29 of NDPS Act 21 of NDPS Act Police Station Hathoor Tallewal Badhni Kalan Sadar Raikot 3. Vide order dated 22.07.2025, the petitioner was granted interim protection and the said order is continuing till date. 4. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 03.05.2025, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 120 loose tablets of white colour and drug money of Rs.900/- from possession of co-accused. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023. 5. During custodial interrogation, the main accused, Sukhdev Singh, confessed before the Police officer that he had purchased the drugs from the petitioner. Based on such confession before the police, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Apprehending arrest, he filed for anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which denied him bail. 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-32979-2025 Feeling aggrieved, he has invoked the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 BNSS, 2023. 6. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 7. 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. 8. 9. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: The name and total weight of the drug Tramadol
Legal Reasoning
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre- trial incarceration. 20. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.1Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.2 Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.3 21. The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or even to frame the charges; however, it is insufficient for the purpose of denying bail. 22. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the witnesses, hampered the investigation, or, despite being called to join the investigation, did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, which is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order and the following additional conditions. 23. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and 1 Supreme Court of India in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. state of Rajasthan, [E-SCR] ; [2008] 17 SCR 369, Para 16, decided on 12.12.2008. 2 Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2J [E-SCR], Paragraph 127, decided on 02.12.2010. 3 Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh & ors v. State of UP, [E-SCR] P. 777, decided on 31.01.1978. 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-32979-2025 when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 24. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 25. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Appellant-Accused 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. 26. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. Interim order dated 22.07.2025 is
Arguments
“A. Hydrochloride, average weight 316mg/tab, Total weight 37.92 grams. C. The evidence on which the petitioner was arraigned as an accused; Petitioner has been nominated as accused in the present case, on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Sukhdev Singh, who was apprehended red handed and from his possession 120 loose tablets were recovered. The evidence against the petitioner: Disclosure statement of D. accused Sukhdev Singh. Role of the petitioner: As per disclosure statement of accused E. Sukhdev Singh.” 10. As per paragraph 7A of the status report, the name of the contraband is Tramadol and its weight is 37.92 grams. 11. Dealing in 37.92 gm of Tramadol in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Quantity detained Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh Tramadol 37.92 Gram 2 CRM-M-32979-2025 Punishable U/s Quantity type Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate S.22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 Intermediate 15.17% Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date S.O. 1762 (E) dated 26.04.2018 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1762(E) 4/26/2018 Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name Small Quantity Commercial Quantity 238 ZH Tramadol ****** ****** < 5 Gram > 250 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.1761(E) & S.O. 3448(E) 26-Apr-2018 & 26-Jul-2018 Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name 110Y Tramadol ****** ****** 12. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case. 13. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quantity as a 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-32979-2025 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. 14. It would be appropriate to refer to the evidence collected against the petitioner, which is taken from the status report, which reads as follows: “6. That during investigation of the case, accused Sukhdev Singh got recorded his disclosure statement u/s 23(2) of BSA that said intoxicant tablets were brought by him from Satpal Singh @ Satta (Petitioner) son of Gurcharan Singh ro Near Sindh Bank, Raman. On the basis of said disclosure statement, petitioner has been nominated as accused and offence u/s 29 of NDPS Act was added in the present case, vide DDR No.44 Dated 03.05.2025. As number of cases have already been registered against the petitioner, so offence u/s 111(2-B) of NDPS Act has been added in this case.” 15. Thus, the evidence collected so far consists of disclosure statements. Such statements can be proven subject to the mandatory restrictions imposed in S. 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ S. 23 of BSA, 2023. 16. In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the majority view of a three-member bench holds as follows: We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. 17. The status report filed by the police reveals that the investigator arraigned the petitioner as an accused based on the disclosure statement of the main accused, from whose possession the investigator had recovered the contraband. No other evidence is collected at this stage to connect the petitioner with the main accused. Thus, there is no justification to deny bail. 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-32979-2025 18. In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl). 2364-2025, decided on 09-07-2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioner before this Court is seeking an anticipatory bail, which was declined by the High Court by an order dated 16.01.2025. The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Section 15B of the NDPS Act and is facing investigation. Vide order dated 09.04.2025, interim protection was granted to the petitioner, subject to cooperation in the investigation. Having considered the entire facts of the matter and the statement made by Ms. Nupur Kumar, learned counsel for the State, we do not think that this is a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Hence, the order dated 09.04.2025 is made absolute. 19. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 18.09.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.18 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 6