Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-55500-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55500-2024
Reserved on: 09.01.2025
Pronounced on: 22.01.2025
Jaspinder Singh @ Ashu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Kompal Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
152 18.10.2022 Nehiawala, District 22(C), 27 of NDPS Act
Bathinda
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 16 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal
antecedents:-
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 06 13.01.2022 379 IPC Nehianwala
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On
October 18, 2022, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 65 strips of Parvorinspas
(tramadol Hydrochloride Diclofenac Sodium, Dicylomine Hydrochloride &
Chlorpheniramine Maleate Capsules) from the petitioner’s possession.
4. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of
the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
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
petitioner and their family.
Jyoti Sharma
2025.01.22 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
1
CRM-M-55500-2024
6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
7. As per para no.5, the total weight of contraband is 407.192 grams, and it contains
tramadol.
8. Dealing in 407.192 grams of Tramadol is a punishable offense under the NDPS
Act in the following terms:
Substance Name Tramadol
Quan ty detained 407.192 Gram
Quan ty type Commercial
Drug Quan ty in % to upper limit
162.88%
of Intermediate
Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985
No fica on No S.O.1762(E)
dated 4/26/2018
Sr. No. 238 ZH
Common Name
(Name of Narco c Drug and
Psychotropic Substance Tramadol
(Interna onal non-proprietary
name (INN)
Other non-proprietary name ******
Chemical Name ******
Small Quan ty 5 Gram
Commercial Quan ty 250 Gram
0
Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii)
NDPS Act, 1985
No fica on No S.O.1761(E) & S.O. 3448(E)
dated 26-Apr-2018 & 26-Jul-2018
Sr. No. 110Y
Common Name
(Name of Narco c Drug and
Psychotropic Substance Tramadol
(Interna onal non-proprietary
name (INN)
Other non-proprietary name ******
Chemical Name ******
9. 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.
10. 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 Junaid Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.)
Jyoti Sharma 7708-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
2025.01.22 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
2
CRM-M-55500-2024[2]. It is pointed out that the petitioner has been in custody for last
more than 18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is
then submitted that only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecution witnesses
have been examined and they have not said anything to connect the
petitioner with the crime.
[3]. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the
concerned Contraband are medicinal drugs but they are sold for
profit. Moreover, it is of commercial quantity.
[4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the
prohibited medicines (SYP Codectus 100 Bottles (100 Ml each),
Cap Pyeevon Spas Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules,
Spasonof NF 960 capsules, Capsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144,
Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules, Alprasafe Table 600 Tablets,
Pyeevon Spas Plus 32 Capsules).
[5]. Having considered the above and the fact that the trial is
unlikely to conclude on a near date, we are of the view that the
petitioner – Junaid Alam deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered
accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the trial
court.
11. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the
rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.
12. 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.
13. In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-
2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the
premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the
fact that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than
one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, though, it is submitted
by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been
framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable
length of time. There is no antecedent involving the appellant.
[6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant
is granted bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by
the Trial Court.
14. Given the above, the petitioner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial
precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to bail under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
15. Per the custody certificate dated 08.01.2025, the petitioner’s custody in this FIR is
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
2025.01.22 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
3
CRM-M-55500-2024
02 years, 02 months and 19 days. 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 the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no
justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
16. 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.
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
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 drug detection squad, their family members, as well as the 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 firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed
based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty,
i.e., beyond 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
Jyoti Sharma with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from
2025.01.22 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
4
CRM-M-55500-2024
prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian
Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of
acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in 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 Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
25. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
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
22.01.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Jyoti Sharma Whether reportable: No.
2025.01.22 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
5
[ad_1]
Source link