[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajandeep Singh Alias Raja vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-8105-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-8105-2025
Reserved on: 02.04.2025
Pronounced on: 22.04.2025
Rajandeep Singh @ Raja ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
15 31.01.2024 Maqsudan District 21-B/61/85 of NDPS Act
Jalandhar (Section 21-B/29 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. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On
31.01.2024, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 100 grams of Heroin from
possession of co-accused. Later on, 550 grams of Heroin was recovered from the other
co-accused pursuant to his disclosure statement. The Investigator claims to have
complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023.
4. During the custodial interrogation of the accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopa, he
disclosed the petitioner and one Rashpal Singh as the purchaser of the drugs; based on the
disclosure statement, the police arraigned the petitioner as an accused by incorporating S.
29 of the NDPS Act.
5. 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
Jyoti Sharma
petitioner and their family. He further seeks bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused
2025.04.22 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
1
CRM-M-8105-2025
Sukhdev Singh @ Kali. Petitioner’s counsel on instructions further submits that petitioner
shall not indulge herself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity
or the offence which falls under Sections 19/24/27-A of NDPS Act. She further submits
that if the petitioner involves herself in the said offences, she has no objection if the State
files an application for cancellation of bail in all FIRs under NDPS Act pending against
the petitioner.
6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
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. In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077-
2022, decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows:
[10]. Thus, both the twin conditions need to be satisfied before a
person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs or
psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condition is
to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a
stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court
must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the
accused is not guilty of such offence, and is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. If either of these two conditions is not met, the
ban on granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds”
means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates
substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty
of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such
an offence, the Court still cannot give a finding on assurance that the
accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant
of bail or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary
from case to case, depending upon its facts.
[31]. Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the
infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section 37 placed in the
statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified
categories, including the commercial quantity; however, it creates
hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed,
the rigors no more subsist, and the factors for bail become similar to
the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC.
9. It would be appropriate to refer to the evidence collected against the petitioner,
which is taken from the status report, which reads as follows:
“ROLE OF PETITIONER:
9. That the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the instant
case/FIR on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by co-
accused Gurpreet Singh@ Gopa and Rashpal Singh. It is pertinent to
mention here that the petitioner is a part of illegal trade of
Jyoti Sharma
2025.04.22 17:36
contraband namely heroin through international border of India-
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
2
CRM-M-8105-2025
Pakistan and recoveries of 100 grams Heroin and 550 grams of
heroin were affected from co-accused Gurpreet Singh and Rashpal
Singh respectively.
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER:
10. That on 02.02.2024, co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopa
suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he is involved in
heroin trade for the last one year and he purchases contraband heroin
from Rashpal Singh and petitioner Rajandeep Singh @ Raja.
11. That another co-accused Rashpal Singh also suffered a
disclosure statement to the effect that he along with Rajandeep Singh
@ Raja are involved in heroin trade for the last 2-3 years and
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopa had purchased 100 grams of heroin (part of
the recovered contraband of the case) from Rashpal Singh and
Rajandeep Singh @ Raja.
12. That on 06.02.2024 Rashpal Singh suffered another disclosure
statement statingtherein that he along with his accomplices Gurpreet
Singh @ Gopa, Sandeep Singh @ Bhutto, Sukhdev Singh @ Kali and
Rajandeep Singh @ Raja are involved in heroin trade and he has got
2 kanalof land near the international border with Pakistan. About 10
days ago, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopa, Sandeep Singh @ Bhutto,
Sukhdev Singh @ Kali and Rajandeep Singh @ Raja came to the
house of Rashpal Singh and told him that they have ordered heroin
from Pakistan which will be delivered via drone and they have to
share the location of drop-point to someone in Pakistan. Thereafter,
location of the drop-point was sent to an unknown person in Pakistan
from the phone of Rashpal Singh and on the next day, 2kg heroin was
dropped in the land of Rashpal Singh via drone.”
10. Thus, the evidence collected so far consists of disclosure statements. Such
statements can be proven subject to the mandatory restrictions imposed in S. 25 & 26 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ S. 23 of BSA, 2023.
11. In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the majority view of a
three-member bench holds as follows:
We answer the reference by stating:
(i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the
NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the
Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to
them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence
Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused
under the NDPS Act.
(ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot
be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the
NDPS Act.
12. The status report filed by the police reveals that the investigator arraigned the
petitioner as an accused based on the disclosure statement of the main accused, from
whose possession the investigator had recovered the contraband. No other evidence is
collected at this stage to connect the petitioner with the main accused. Thus, there is no
Jyoti Sharma
2025.04.22 17:36
justification to deny bail. Consequently, the petitioner has satisfied the first rider of
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
3
CRM-M-8105-2025
section 37 of the NDPS Act. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this court will put very
stringent conditions in this order to ensure that the petitioner does not repeat the offense.
13. For now, the petitioner has prima facie satisfied the first condition of section 37 of
the NDPS Act to make a case for bail. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this court will
put very stringent conditions in this order to ensure that the petitioner does not repeat the
offense.
14. As per paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since
02.02.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 01.04.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in
this FIR is 01 year, 01 month and 26 days. 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.
15. The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or
even to frame the charges; however, it is insufficient for denying bail.
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:
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)
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
Jyoti Sharma
2025.04.22 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
4
CRM-M-8105-2025
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 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
the victim(s), their families, and 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
necessary consequences.”
24. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
25. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
Jyoti Sharma
case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
2025.04.22 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
5
CRM-M-8105-2025
26. 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.
27. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
22.04.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Jyoti Sharma
2025.04.22 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
6
[ad_2]
Source link