Satpal alias Choti alias Kalu v. State of Haryana
Case Details
1 CRM-M-33185-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pronounced on: 26.08.2025 CRM-M-33185-2025 Reserved on: 06.08.2025 Satpal alias Choti alias Kalu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Neeraj Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 12 06.01.2025 Bhondsi, District 20(b)(ii)(b)/29 of NDPS Act Gurugram 1985 and Sections 111(2)/61(2) of BNS 2023 1. The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of
Legal Reasoning
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 483 BNSS 2023 seeking bail on the ground that the quantity of contraband is less than commercial and rigours of S. 37 of NDPS Act do not apply. 2. Per paragraph 14 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 05.08.2025, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. 7 1 147 2 338 3 Date Offences 06.01.2020 20/61/85 of NDPS Act 05.05.2020 20/61/85 of NDPS Act 25.11.2020 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act Police Station Sector 40, Gurugram Sector-40, Gurugram Sector-40, Gurugram 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 06.01.2025 based on secret information, the Police seized 5 kg 50 grams of ganja from the possession of co-accused Mohammad Kamran Qureshi. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS 2023. Later on one more accused Emamulla alias Motim was arraigned as accused, who disclosed the name of petitioner; based on the disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an ANJU RANI 2025.08.26 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-33185-2025 accused by incorporating S. 29 of the NDPS Act. 2 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 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. 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:- “11. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER As per the investigations, the petitioner Satpal Raghav had played an active role in the commission of present crime, he functioned as a facilitator and conspirator in the drug trafficking network by providing logistical support to the primary operative. He had provided his personal motorcycle (HR-26-EK- 5965 Hero Splendor, black color) to co-accused Emamulla alias Motim specifically for the purpose of conducting narcotic substance sales. This assistance was crucial to the drug trafficking operation as it enabled the mobile distribution of ganja. 12. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER The disclosure statement made by co-accused Emamulla alias Motim during his custodial terrogation, wherein he specifically okimplicated the petitioner's complicity in the drug trafficking operation. Further, the motorcycle bearing registration number HR-26-EK-5965, which was recovered from Emamulla's possession and established the direct link between the petitioner and the criminal activity.” 7. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper ANJU RANI 2025.08.26 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-33185-2025 3 witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. 8. While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles. 9. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8], CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles. 10. As per paragraph 3 of the reply, the name of the contraband is ganja and its weight is 5 kg 50 grams, and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Quantity detained Quantity type Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate Ganja/ Bhang Patti 5.05 Kg Intermediate 25.25% Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date ANJU RANI 2025.08.26 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) CRM-M-33185-2025 Punishable U/s 4 S.22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 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. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name Small Quantity 55 Ganja ****** ****** < 1000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 1 Kg) Commercial Quantity > 20000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 20 Kg) Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 0 Notification No. & dated 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act, 1985, S.O.821(E) 11/14/1985 Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name 2(iii)(b) ****** ****** S.2(iii)(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; S. 2(viiib)] “illicit traffic”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means— (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant; (ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of Chemical Name ANJU RANI 2025.08.26 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-33185-2025 5 narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; 11. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is not commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case. 12. 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 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, which specify an offence, also 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 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. 13. Per the custody certificate dated 05.08.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 03 months & 12 days. 14. The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or even to frame the charges; however, it is insufficient for denying bail. 15. Given the penal provisions invoked, coupled with the prima facie 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. 16. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances unique and 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 this Court's official webpage. CONDITIONS: 17. 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. 18. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: ANJU RANI 2025.08.26 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the 5 6 CRM-M-33185-2025 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
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. 21. 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 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 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.” 23. 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 ANJU RANI 2025.08.26 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 6 CRM-M-33185-2025 necessary consequences.” 7 24. 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. 25. 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 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. 26. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 27. 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.” 28. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
disposed of. 26.08.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE ANJU RANI 2025.08.26 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 7