Shammi Kumar v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-44770-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44770-2025 Reserved on: 10.09.2025 Pronounced on: 25.09.2025 Shammi Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 39 Dated 06.03.2022 Police Station Division 4, Patiala Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act (Section 22 of NDPS Act added later on) 1. 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 6 of the bail application and paragraph 20 of short reply, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. 1. 2.
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. 75 168 Offenses Date 26.07.2018 379-B, 411 IPC 21.08.2018 382, 34 IPC 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 105 117 251 276 119 29.07.2019 21 of NDPS Act 20.08.2021 302, 34 IPC 29.08.2022 52-A of Prison Act 29.10.2022 52-A of Prison Act 10.04.2023 52-A of Prison Act District Police Station Bareta City, Roopnagar Lahori Gate Bareta Tripuri Antf, Sector 79 Tripuri 3. The facts and allegations are taken from paras 4 and 14 of the short reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “4. That the brief facts of the present case/FIR No. 39/2022 (supra) are that on 06.03.2022, SI Gurdeep Singh alongwith ASI Jasvir Singh, ASI Sahib Singh, ASI Roop Singh and ASI Pawan Kumar, in connection with checking of bad and suspicious elements, were present at T-Point Gurudwara Jhaal Sahib, Patiala on official vehicle, wherein, a secret informer met with SI Gurdeep Singh and informed him that Ajay Kumar alias Kangaroo, Shammi (present petitioner), Mohammad Asran alias 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-44770-2025 Aslam, Shubham, Rajveer alias Raja, Rajan, Anmol Vadera and Nawab Shah were habitual of supplying drugs. They do the business of selling drugs in Patiala city and its adjoining areas by making a big network. Apart from the aforementioned persons, many other smugglers were members of this gang. Upon apprehending the said persons, narcotic drugs can be recovered. The secret informer further disclosed that a big consignment of drugs of the said persons was coming to Patiala city and Shammi (petitioner) was the main head of the gang. If search of the said persons be conducted in the areas of newly building Rajpura Colony, near Bus Stand Patiala, the said persons can be apprehended alongwith intoxicant substances. Since the secret information was solid and reliable, therefore, present case/FIR No. 39 (supra) was registered against the aforementioned Ajay Kumar alias Kangaroo, Shammi (present petitioner), Mohammad Asran alias Aslam, Shubham, Rajveer alias Raja, Rajan, Anmol Vadera and Nawab Shah for the offence under Section 21, 29-61-85 of NDPS Act. 14. That during the course of investigation, the accused Shammi Kumar (petitioner) and Saurav Jaiswal alias Shubham alias Babbu were arrested by the investigating agency on 25.06.2022. Thereafter, the police party recovered 1500 intoxicant tablets as per disclosure statement suffered by accused Shammi Kumar (petitioner) and 1200 intoxicant tablets as per the disclosure NOTARY statement suffered by accused Saurav Jaiswal alias Shubham alias Babbu. Thereafter, separate parcels of both the recoveries were prepared and the same were deposited in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Phase-4, SAS Nagar on 27.06.2022 and as per report of chemical examiner, the ingredients found in both the parcels was Alprazolam. The copy of the report of FSL is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 for the kind consideration.” 4. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 5. 6. 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. 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, Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 2 CRM-M-44770-2025 8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the short reply. REASONING: 9. Para 16 of the short reply reads as follows: “16. The name and total weight of the drug: That in the present case, following recoveries have been effected from the petitioner and his co- accused: - i. Accused Mohammad Asran alias Aslam: 325 grams Heroin 700 grams Smack, having salt Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). ii. Accused Ajay Kumar alias Kangaroo: - 900 grams Smack having salt Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). iii. Accused Rajan Singh alias Rajan: 900 grams of Smack having salt Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). iv. Accused Rajveer Singh alias Rajan: 2000 intoxicant tablets having salt Tramadol Hydrochloride. v. Accused Nawab Shah alias Nawab Khan: 20 grams of Heroin having salt Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). vi. Accused Shammi Kumar (petitioner): 1500 intoxicant tablets having salt Alprazolam. vii. Accused Saurav Jaiswal alias Shubham alias Babbu: 1200 intoxicant tablets having salt Alprazolam.” 10. Dealing in Heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Punishable U/s Quantity type Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Diacetylmorphine S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Commercial 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. Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 56 3 CRM-M-44770-2025 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name Small Quantity Commercial Quantity Heroin ****** Diacetylmorphine < 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.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of 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 Chemical Name 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. 11. Dealing in175.5 grams of Alprazolam which is commercial quantity in Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-44770-2025 contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name Punishable U/s Quantity type ALPRAZOLAM S.22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Commercial 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. 178 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) ALPRAZOLAM Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name Small Quantity Commercial Quantity ****** 8-chloro-1-methyl-6-phenyl-4H-s- triazolo[4,3-a][1,4]benzodiazepine < 5 Gram > 100 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 NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 821(E) 11/14/1985 Sr. No. 30 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name Chemical Name Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh ALPRAZOLAM ****** 8-Chloro-1-methyl-6-phenyl-4H-s-triazolo [4, 3-a] [1, 4] benzodiazepine 5 CRM-M-44770-2025 12. 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. 13. Per the custody certificate dated 09.09.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is 03 years, 01 month and 25 days. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. In Ajay Khatri v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 20-03-2025, SLP (Crl) No. 1228-2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 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 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 6 CRM-M-44770-2025 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. 20. 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)
Legal Reasoning
21. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 7 CRM-M-44770-2025 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.” 25. 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.” 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 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. 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. It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above. 29. 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.” 30. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 25.09.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.25 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 8