[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Majroor Seth Alias Birju Alias Majrool … vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055118
1
CRM-M-60813-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60813-2024
Reserved on: 08.04.2025
Pronounced on: 28.04.2025
Majroor Seth alias Birju alias Majrool Seth alias Majarul ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Davinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 13 28.01.2024 Dakha, District Ludhiana (Rural) 22 of NDPS Act
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 20 of the bail petition accused declares that he has no other
criminal history, however as per custody certificated dated 07.04.2025, accused has the
following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station 1 71 10.09.2022 457, 380 IPC Sudhar 2 90 13.06.2020 61 of Excise Act Dakha
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On
28.01.2024, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 220 loose tablets (weighing
27.940 grams as per FSL, salt Buprenorphine Hydrochloride) 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. The petitioner’s counsel submits that petitioner is in custody from last more than
one year, investigation has already been conducted and challan has already been
presented and the trial will take time to conclude. He further 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.
1
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:29:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055118
2
CRM-M-60813-2024
5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer following portion of the reply, which reads as
follows:-
“A. That the role of the petitioner in this case is that 220 Intoxicant tablets
were recovered from him without any permit or licence. On analysis, the
FSL report reveals that salt Buprenorphine Hydrochloride was detected in
the tables.
B. That the recovery of intoxicant tablets was effected in thepresence of
ASI Kuldeep Singh PS Dakha and Constable Gurpinder Singh No. 377 PS
Dakha and ASI Gursewak Singh. So there is evidence of these PWs against
the petitioner in this case.
C. The loose intoxicant tablets were recovered from the petitioner. After
analysis by the FSL, salt Buprenorphine Hydrochloride was detected in
the contents of tablets. Average weight of one tablet was found 127 mg. So
the total weight of all the tables came to 220×127=27.940 garms.”
7. As per FSL report, the average weight of tablet is 127 mg, so total weight of 220
tablets is 27.940 grams and it contained Buprenorphine Hydrochloride.
REASONING:
8. 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.
9. However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon’ble Supreme Court had
granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents:
1) In Shince Babu v. The State of Kerala, decided on 21 Feb 2024,
MANU/SCOR/27340/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The prosecution case is that Accused No.1 (Liju) was found
travelling in a private bus from Cherthala to Arookutty and
contraband MDMA, weighing 138.750 gms, was recovered from
his conscious possession. The said contraband was procured by
Accused No.1 with the help of Accused No.2 from Bangalore. The
petitioner is nominated as Accused No.4 in the crime. He was
arrested on 11.04.2022. The petitioner was granted bail by the
Trial Court on 20.09.2022 but on a petition filed by the State of
Kerala, challenging the bail order, the High Court cancelled the
petitioner’s bail on 13.06.2023. However, liberty was granted to the
petitioner to apply afresh before the Sessions Court. The petitioner
again applied for bail but his prayer was declined by the Trial
Court on 07.07.2023. The petitioner approached the High Court
but his first bail application was dismissed on 14.08.2023. His
second bail application was turned down by the High Court on2
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:29:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0551183
CRM-M-60813-2024
09.10.2023. Meanwhile, Accused No.2 was granted bail by the
High Court on 11.10.2023. Seeking parity with the co-accused, the
petitioner moved third bail application, which has been rejected by
the High Court vide the impugned order dated 09.11.2023.
[3]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the material placed on record.
[4]. It may be seen from para 6 of the impugned order that the
High Court, while declining bail to the petitioner, was largely
influenced by the fact that a huge quantity of contraband, which
falls in the category of ‘commercial’, was recovered and as such,
the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. On a
specific query, it is not disputed by learned State counsel that no
contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the
petitioner. In such circumstances, it is difficult for us to apply the
twin test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the
petitioner’s prayer for bail.
[5]. Be that as it may, the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2022
except for the period from 20.09.2022 to 27.06.2023 when he
remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by the Trial
Court/Sessions Court.
[6]. It seems that the investigation is complete and the conclusion
of trial will take some reasonable time. The petitioner’s co-accused
are already on regular bail/default bail. As per the record, there are
no criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
[7]. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances but
without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
[8]. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail
subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court.
[9]. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on
each and every date of hearing, failing which it shall be taken as a
misuse of concession of bail granted to him today by this Court.
2) In Sohrab Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13 Aug 2024,
SLP (Crl.) 7115-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Cort holds,
The petitioner is an accused for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act. His bail application was dismissed by the High
Court. He has already undergone about one year and four months
in jail. The petitioner and coaccused were found in possession of
80 grams of MD powder each of which commercial quantity is 50
grams.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents
and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the
opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and
therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail
forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the
concerned Court.
3
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:29:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055118
4
CRM-M-60813-2024
3) In Ramlal v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510-
2024, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to a first offender after
one year and six months of custody who was possessing 450 grams of smack
(Heroin), and the holds as follows:
The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 450
gram of smack has been recovered from them. The bail application
of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he
approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and
6 months in jail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As per office report dated
13.09.2024, the service is deemed complete on the sole
respondent-State but no one has appeared for the State.
Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the
fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, we are of the
opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.
4) In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024,
SLP (Crl) 8557-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 21(c) and 29 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 275 gms. and
50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular
bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already
undergone about 1 year six months in jail.
Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
Considering the quantity of the contraband articles and the period
of his incarceration, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is
made out for the petitioner.
5) In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-
2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information,
the police conducted a raid in which the petitioner and the co-
accused Rabiul Alam were arrested and 4 kgs., 920 gms of opium
latex was seized.
[4]. It is not in dispute that after filing of chargesheet and framing
of charges, the trial has commenced but only examination-in-chief
of P.W.1 has been completed. However, there are 12 witnesses,
who are proposed to be examined by the prosecution.
[5]. It may be mentioned that the High Court while declining bail
to the petitioner has directed for conclusion of trial within one
year. But it seems that regardless thereto, the trial has not
been expedited as no effective hearing took place for the last 2/3
dates. That being so, the conclusion of trial is likely to take some
reasonable time. The petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents. He has already spent one year and six months in
custody. The continued incarceration of the petitioner will not
serve any useful purpose.
[6]. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in
custody and the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal
4
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:29:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055118
5
CRM-M-60813-2024
antecedents, we are satisfied that the conditions prescribed under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at this stage.
6) In Johnson v. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, NIB – CID, decided on
18-Oct-2024, SLP (Crl) 9737-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The allegations are that 150 kgs. of ganja was recovered from
the trunk of the petitioner’s car. The vehicle was intercepted on
some secrete information while the petitioner was driving the
same. The petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2021 and is in custody
since then. The bail was declined primarily on the ground that a
huge quantity of ganja, which falls in commercial category, was
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
[3]. Though, learned senior counsel for the State informs that the
trial has commenced and some of the witnesses have already been
examined, it seems to us that the final conclusion of the trial will
take some more time.
[4]. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has
already spent more than 3½ years in custody and there are no
criminal antecedents, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section
37 of the NDPS Act are deemed to have been adequately met with.
Consequently, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to
his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He
shall remain present on each and every date of hearing before the
Trial Court till the trial is concluded.
7) Bhola Shikari v. The State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 11-Nov-2024, SLP
(Crl) 13236-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
In connection with FIR No. 150 of 2024 dated 10.03.2024,
registered at Police Station-Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘), the petitioner was
arrested on 10.03.2024, as the petitioner along with three others
were found in joint possession of 21 Kgs of Ganja.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that
final report was already filed and thereafter, the Court has also
framed the charges against them.
In the said circumstances and taking note of the fact that the
petitioner has been in custody since 10.03.2024, we are of the
considered view that this special leave petition can be disposed of
ordering that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the
stringent terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.
Ordered accordingly.
10. Per the custody certificate dated 07.04.2025, the petitioner is in custody for 01
year, 02 months & 08 days in this FIR. Given the drugs were medicines that attracted
violation of S.22 of NDPS Act, Viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie
analysis of the nature of allegations and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be
no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
5
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:29:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055118
6
CRM-M-60813-2024
11. 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.
12. 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 legal
grounds for denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.
13. 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.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court’s official
webpage.
CONDITIONS:
14. 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.
15. 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)
16. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.
17. 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.
18. 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
1
Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on
13 July 2023
6
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:29:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055118
7
CRM-M-60813-2024
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.
19. 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.”
20. 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.”
21. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity and the offence
u/s19/24/27A of NDPS Act, the State shall file an application for cancellation of this
bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
22. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
23. 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.
7
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:29:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055118
8
CRM-M-60813-2024
24. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
28.04.2025
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
8
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:29:21 :::
[ad_2]
Source link