Sunny v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-49964-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49964-2024 Reserved on: 02.04.2025 Pronounced on: 08.04.2025 Sunny ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 68 16.06.2022 Navi Baradari, Jalandhar 21, 22 of NDPS Act and 25 of Arms Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 29, 25(8) of Arms Act added later on) 1.
Legal Reasoning
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. In para 21 of the bail application and as per para 13 of the reply/custody certificate, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated 1. 270 13.09.2023 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 123 271 44 41 115 281 85 148 16.05.2021 15.09.2020 01.03.2021 25.03.2018 18.09.2022 14.11.2018 16.07.2019 18.10.2019 JYOTI 2025.04.09 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Police Station Ramamandi Jalandhar Division no.8 Jalandhar Division no.8 Jalandhar Division no.8 Jalandhar Navi Baradari, Jalandar Division no.8 Jalandhar Division no.8 Jalandhar Division no.8 Jalandhar Division no.8 Jalandhar Offenses 201 IPC, 29 of NDPS Act, 52-A Prison Act, 25 of Arms Act 307, 148, 149 IPC, 25, 27 of Arms Act 307, 323, 324, 452, 34, 201 IPC 458, 511, 506, 336, 268 IPC, 25 of Arms Act 353, 186, 506, 34 IPC, 25 of Arms Act 307, 394, 341, 323, 34 IPC, 25 of Arms Act 307, 323, 324, 326, 148, 149 IPC 323, 324, 326, 341, 148, 149 IPC 323, 324, 325, 148, 149, 506, 427 IPC 1 CRM-M-49964-2024 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 16.06.2022, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 51 grams of heroin, 280 grams of intoxicant powder, Rs.6 lakhs drug money, one pistol along with two magazines and 28 cartridges from the petitioner’s possession. Similarly, 52 grams of heroin and 270 grams of intoxicant powder, one pistol along with two magazines and 14 cartridges were recovered from Smile @ Sheru @ Rajni Kant; one pistol, two magazines along with 14 cartridges were recovered from accused Divansh; one pistol along with 5 cartridges were recovered from Happy. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. The petitioner seeks bail on pre-trial custody of more than two years and nine months. Counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Sections 19/24/27-A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offence, he has no objection if the State files application of cancellation of bail in all FIRs under NDPS Act, pending against the petitioner. He further contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. It would be appropriate to refer following portions of the reply, which reads as follows: “Role of petitioner 12. That petitioner was apprehended with 51 grams of heroin, 280 grams of intoxicant powder, Rs.6 lakhs drug money, one pistol along with two magazines and 14 cartridges have been recovered. It has further come on record that co-accused Aman has suffered disclosure statement that he in connivance with co-accused Karanpreet Singh has sold 2 pistol, 4 magazines and 28 bullets to Sunny (present petitioner) and his brother Smile @ Sheru@ Rajnikant for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and he along with Karanpreet Singh have sold 1 pistol, 2 magazine and 14 bullots to Divansh @ Vansh for sum of Rs.60,000/- and he along with Karanpreet Singh have spent the said money.” REASONING: 7. 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 put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8. As per the custody certificate dated 01.04.2025, the petitioner has been in custody for 02 years, 09 months and 07 days in this FIR. JYOTI 2025.04.09 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-49964-2024 9. 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. 10. The petitioner is entitled to bail based on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022], decided on 25 Jan 2023. Dheeraj Shukla would be attracted when the three conditions are fulfilled, (a). (b). (c) The custody of more than two years and six months and the delay was not attributable to the accused. The trial is at an initial stage. The petitioner is the first offender. 11. Considering the quantity involved and the pre-trial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not a legal ground for denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 12. Given the undertaking by counsel for the petitioner on instructions that the petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence under NDPS Act and in case, he involves himself in the said offence, he has no objection if the State files an application of cancellation of bail in all FIRs under NDPS Act, pending against the petitioner, he is entitled to bail. 13. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie 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. 14. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. CONDITIONS: 15. 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. 16. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 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 2025.04.09 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-49964-2024 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) 17.
Legal Reasoning
This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 18. 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. 19. 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 the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 20. 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.” 21. 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 JYOTI 2025.04.09 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4 CRM-M-49964-2024 granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 22. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any offense under NDPS Act, the State shall file an application for cancellation of bail in all FIRs under NDPS Act before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 23. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner 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. 25. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 08.04.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.04.09 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5