Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-37439-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 212 CRM-M-37439-2025 Decided on: 21.08.2025 Narinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 53 1. 01.05.2025 Khemkaran, Distt. Tarn Taran 21-B and 29 of NDPS Act
Facts
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. As per paragraph 17 of the bail application and as per the custody certificate, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. FIR No. 25 26 62 Dated 13.04.2015 23.04.2015 13.04.2019 Offences 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Khemkaran 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Khemkaran 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act Police Station Sadar Patti, Distt. Tarn Taran 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the order dated 05.07.2025 dismissing the bail application of the petitioner. On 01.05.2025, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 6.31 grams of heroin 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 his family. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection JYOTI 2025.08.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-37439-2025 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. 8. The State’s counsel opposes bail on instructions. As per order of the trial Court, the name of the contraband is heroin and its weight
Legal Reasoning
Under these circumstances, considering the quantity of the contraband article and the period of incarceration of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner. 14. As per paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 01.05.2025. As per the custody certificate dated 20.08.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 03 months and 18 days. 15. 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. 16. 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, subject to the terms and conditions of this order. However, this order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court's official webpage. 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 2025.08.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4 CRM-M-37439-2025 CONDITIONS: 17. 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 10,000. 18. 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 10,000/-, 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. 19. 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) 20. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 21. 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. 22. 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, JYOTI 2025.08.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5 CRM-M-37439-2025 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. 23. 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.” 24. 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 necessary consequences.” 25. 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. 26. 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 Special Judge/ Sessions 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. 27. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 28. 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 JYOTI 2025.08.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 6 CRM-M-37439-2025 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.” 29. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Arguments
is 6.31 grams. 9. It constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Quantity detained Punishable U/s Quantity type Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Diacetylmorphine 6.31 Gram S.21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 Intermediate Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) 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 Commercial Quantity 56 Heroin ****** Diacetylmorphine < 5 Gram > 250 Gram JYOTI 2025.08.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 0 2 CRM-M-37439-2025 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 821 (E) 11/14/1985 2(xvi)(d) ****** ****** 2(xvi)(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts; Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses (v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage: Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation. 10. 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. 11. 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 JYOTI 2025.08.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-37439-2025 restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes. 12. The petitioner is entitled to bail because when the quantity involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent: 13. In Rajesh v. The State of Haryana, decided on 20-11-2024, SLP (Crl) 14037-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioner is an accused in a case bearing FIR No.67 dated 25.01.2024 registered with Police Station Majesar, District Faridabad, Haryana for the offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called “NDPS”) . The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a alleged recovery of 1.200 kgs of ganja (contraband article) from him. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 10 months in jail. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State. The bail has not been granted by the High Court only for the reason that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Although, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of four cases, there is only one case of NDPS against the petitioner and the remaining cases (three in number) relate to Excise Act and not of NDPS.
Decision
disposed of. 21.08.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.08.28 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 7