1 1 CRM-M-34208- -2025 (O&M) 115 (1st case) IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF v. CRM-M-34208-2025
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-34208- -2025 (O&M) 115 (1st case) IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH asih Daler Masih Punjab State of Punjab versus CRM-M-34208-2025 (O&M) M) 2025 Date of decision: July 29, 2025 D ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for th for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan Singh Rai, h Rai, Senior DAG Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed the filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Na a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 o as 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) for g for grant of regular bail to the petitio
Facts
13 petitioner in case bearing FIR No.13 dated 03.03.20 .03.2025, registered for the offences s 22, ences punishable under Sections 22, 25, 29, 27-A A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psych 1985 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter re fter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’), at P idan, at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, Amritsar Rura r Rural. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in que er is in question is that the petitioner is accused of be of being involved in an FIR pertain lving pertaining to NDPS Act, involving recovery of 25 250 intoxicant tablets, i.e. 97 gram - 7 grams of Tramadol, and Rs.1,000/- allegedly being y being drug money, from the petitione titioner. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 2 CRM-M-34208- -2025 (O&M) 3.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in rt in Jaswinder Singh alias Kala ver ed in versus State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-3372 33729-2025 (2025:PHHC:089161) reads 61); the relevant whereof reads As a sequitur to “14. fo following postulates emerge: (I) the to above-said rumination, the A bail plea on merit (i) NDPS Act of 1985 involvin or Section 24 or Section 2 involving commercial quan meet with the rigour(s) of S der erits; in respect of an FIR under olving offence(s) under Section 19 19 on 27-A thereof and for offence(s) (s) to quantity; is essentially required to of Section 37 of NDPS Act. (ii) The rigour(s) of Sec apply to a bail plea(s) on m not f Section 37 of NDPS Act do not ail on medical ground(s), interim bail thus: MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-34208- -2025 (O&M) 4 4 on account of any exige demise of a close family rel of xigency including the reason of ly relative etc. (iii) The rigour(s) of Sec oblivion when bail is sou incarceration in view of Ar India i.e. where the bail under-trial custody, the tri thereof is not attributable t nto Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into s sought for on account of long ng of Article 21 of the Constitution of of ng bail-applicant has suffered long lly e trial is procrastinating and folly ble to such bail-applicant. II. II The twin conditions cont NDPS Act are in addition contained in Cr.P.C./BN extant law. of contained in Section 37(1)(b) of ition to the conditions/parameters ers ble ./BNSS or any other applicable of contained in Section 37(1)(b) of III. The twin conditions cont II ive tive in nature and not alternative NDPS Act are cumulative r a s are required to be satisfied for a i.e. both the conditions are ful. bail-plea to be successful. IV. For consideration by b IV stipulated in Section 37(1) are reasonable grounds for of such offence”: y bail Court of the condition ion 7(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “there ere ilty s for believing that he is not guilty The bail Cou (i) relevant material, in for the limited purp plea. all Court ought to sift through all l, including case-dairy, exclusively ely ail purpose of adjudicating such bail concerning the the onsideration, consid Such (ii) not guilt or innocence, should not assessment of guil degree of scrutiny required for an an mirror the same deg & acquittal of the accu accused at the final adjudication & rial. culmination of trial. (iii) Plea(s) of def any, including ma thereof, may be look adjudicating such ba f defence by applicant-accused, if , if in support ort ile looked into by the bail-Court while h bail plea. material/documents For consideration of the c 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. ‘he is not while on bail’: The word ‘like (i) requiring a dem ion the condition stipulated in Section nce not likely to commit any offence as likely’ ought to be interpreted as tial substantial demonstrable and V. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-34208- -2025 (O&M) 5 5 probability of re-off rather than a mere can predict future co nt, offending by the bail-applicant, urt ere theoretical one, as no Court re conduct of the bail-applicant. e factual matrix of a given case ase (ii) The entire fa ntecedents of the bail-applicant, nt, including the antec are him, and the nature of offence are role ascribed to him the the e delved to be d required another her f of involvement nce cannot ipso facto result in the the NDPS/other offence nce s propensity for committing offence conclusion of his pro in the future. However, in bail-applicant into. ing ourt may, at the time of granting (iii) The bail-Cour the applicant-accused a a upon impose upon bail, lar e would submit, at such regular condition that he w urt rval as may stipulated by the Court time period/interval an affidavit before concerned ed granting bail, an qa Court/Illaqa e Judge Special ed Judicial Magistrate/concerned Ju (Jurisdictional) to the effect that he has not been een Police Station, to th mission of any offence after being ing involved in commiss se, il. In the facts of a given case, released on bail. ch condition may be considered to to imposition of such c ion for satisfaction of condition for be sufficient ection 37(1)(b)(ii). enumerated in Sectio NDPS of VI. There is no gainsaying tha of exercise of power by a regarding the conditions NDPS Act; shall depend exercised by such Court in a given case. No exhausti laid down as to what wo satisfaction of requiremen every case has its own Making such an attemp endeavour. Ergo, this iss wisdom and discretion of matter.” g that the nature, mode and extent ent self by a Court; while satisfying itself ions stipulated in Section 37 of of end upon the judicial discretion ion of rt in the facts and circumstances of austive guidelines can possibly be be t would constitute parameters for for as ement under Section 37 (ibid) as own unique facts/circumstances. es. empt is nothing but a utopian ian s issue is best left to the judicial ial ch n of the Court dealing with such Suffice to say, further detenti s an detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is no al is not warranted in the facts and circ nd circumstances of the case. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6 6 CRM-M-34208- -2025 (O&M) 9. In view of above, the present pe er is ent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be to be released on regular bail on his f ds to n his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction faction of the Ld. concerned trial Cou ever, ial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to tion to conditions that may be imp trial e imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty M uty Magistrate, the petitioner shall re wing hall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tam documentary, during the tri (iii) The petitioner shall not abs ot mis-use the liberty granted. al or ot tamper with any evidence, oral or the trial. efore ot absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not c e on not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposi h the deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change his ce permission of the trial Cour (vii) The petitioner shall not in give his cellphone number to the the ation r/SHO of concerned Police Station prior is cell-phone number without prior l Court/Illaqa Magistrate. y the not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submi every month, an affidavi Court, to the effect that commission of any offence In case the petitioner is offence after his being en FIR, on the basis of his affi mandated to move, forthwi which plea, but of course merits thereof. submit, on the first working day of y of trial fidavit, before the concerned trial that he has not been involved in d in offence after being released on bail. bail. any er is found to be involved in any ing enlarged on bail in the present esent his affidavit or otherwise, the State is ate is bail orthwith, for cancellation of his bail upon course, shall be ratiocinated upon 10. In case of breach of any of the a those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may be ay be imposed by concerned trial Cou ected al Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove ove or upon showing any o ny other sufficient cause, the the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-34208- -2025 (O&M) 7 7 State/complain mplainant shall be at liberty to mov f the o move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 11. 12. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 13. Since the main case has been de eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if ion, if any, shall also stands disposed o osed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 29, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner titioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody s stody since 03.03.2025. Learned coun that d counsel has further submitted that the prosecution ecution version, available at this stage fects s stage, suffers from inherent defects as the mandat andatory provisions of the NDPS Ac been PS Act have not scrupulously been complied with d with. Learned counsel has further nd is rther iterated that the contraband is non-commerci mercial in nature and it is only on a ry of on account of alleged recovery of drug money of ney of Rs.1,000/- that the police has s ns of e has sought to invoke provisions of Section 37 of t 37 of the NDPS Act, so as to debar the bail. bar the petitioner from securing bail. Thus, regular b gular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opp by s opposed the present petition by arguing that th that the allegations raised against the ature st the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he he does not deserve the concessio ed cession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel h unsel has further submitted that the in y the the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Sect f Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and o be , and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Lea Learned State counsel seeks to plac icate to place on record custody certificate dated 24.07.20 2025 in Court, which is taken on r n on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival ough rival parties and have gone through the available re lable records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 03 uous 03.03.2025 and is in continuous custody since since then. The contraband alleged to the to have been recovered from the petitioner is es r is essentially non-commercial in nat h the in nature. The basis upon which the police is statin stating that the amount of Rs.1,000/ ioner ,000/- recovered from the petitioner is drug money money, is only the confessional statem rival l statement of co-accused. The rival MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-34208- -2025 (O&M) 3 3 contentions ra ons raised at Bar give rise to debatab ated ebatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during th ring the course of trial. This Court do te to ourt does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into ep into these rival contentions, at this e the at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing t hing tangible has been brought forwa od of forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner ioner absconding from the process of h the ess of justice or interfering with the prosecution ev tion evidence. 7. As per custody certificate dated rned ated 24.07.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, unsel, the petitioner has already suffe eriod y suffered incarceration for a period of more than than 04 months & is not shown to b case/ n to be involved in any other case/ FIR. In this vi this view of the matter, the rigor imp f the or imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act sta stands diluted in light of the Art n of e Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the factual milieu of the case, ered case, this Court is of the considered opinion that fetters of Section 37 of the NDPS so as NDPS Act have been met with so as to enlarge the ge the petitioner on bail. It would be nt of ld be apposite to refer a judgment of