Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh Alias Gaggi vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050963
CRM-M-54007-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54007-2024
Reserved on: 02.04.2025
Pronounced on: 21.04.2025
Nirmal Singh @ Gaggi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
11 18.01.2024 Garhi, Distt. Jind 18-A, 18-C of Drug Cosmetic
Act and 22-C 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] (Section
439 CrPC), seeking regular bail.
2. In paragraph 10 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
18.01.2024, based on prior information, the Police recovered 55 bottles marka codeine
phosphate Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup Wincerex Cough syrup from one polythene
and from other polythene 700 tablets marka Carisoprodol Tablets IP Carisoma from the
petitioner’s possession. 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 01 year and two
months. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection in case any
stringent conditions this Court might put upon the petitioner including in case petitioner
repeats the offence where the sentence prescribed is more than three years, then the State
shall file an application for cancellation of bail. He further contends that further pre-trial
incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.
5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
1
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:48:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050963
CRM-M-54007-2024
6. It would be appropriate to refer following portions of the reply, which reads as
follows:
“11. That, the complicity of the petitioner is concerned it is submitted that
the present FIR has been registered with the allegations that on
18.01.2024, ASI Avtar Singh alongwith police party was present at Anaj
Mandi Dhamtan Sahib where secret information was received that the
accused Nirmal Singh indulges himself in sale of intoxicating medicines
and had gone towards Railway Station carrying a bag on his back. On
search of the accused, from the bag carried by him two black polythenes
were recovered containing 55 bottles Marka Codeine Phosphate
Triprolidine Hydrochiride Syrup Wincerex Cough Syrup Mfd. in India by
Biogenetic Drugs Pvt. Ltd village-Jharmazri, Baddi-174103, Dist. Solan,
H.P. Mfg. LIC No.MNB/05/150, Batch No. WINC.00323 MFG Date
Dec.2023 Exp. Nov. 2025. In anther polythene 70 strips, in each strip 10
tables, total 700 tablets marka Carisoprodol Tablets IP Carisoma Tablets
Batch No.CAR004D manufactured Oct. 2023 Exp. Sept. 2026 Mfg. By
Wallac. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Bhatian, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
The Drug Inspector Smt. Rubi Sharma was also contacted, who opined
that Codeine Phosphate comes under NDPS Act. The recovered drug/
contraband falls under commercial quantity and attracts rigor of Section
37 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The
allegations against the petitioner-accused are thus specific, grave and
serious in nature. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and
circumstances and also the seriousness and gravity of the offence
allegedly committed by the petitioner-accused, he is not entitled to be
released on bail.”
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. 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.) 7708-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[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.
2
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:48:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050963
CRM-M-54007-2024
[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.
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. 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.
11. Given the undertaking by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would have
no objection in case he repeats the offence where the sentence prescribed is more than
three years, then the State shall file an application for cancellation of bail, as such, he is
entitled to bail.
12. Given the above, based on the petitioner’s pretrial custody, the petitioner is
entitled to bail under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13. As per the custody certificate dated 01.04.2025, the petitioner’s custody in this
FIR is of 01 year, 02 months and 10 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
1
Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on
13 July 2023
3
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:48:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050963
CRM-M-54007-2024
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
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. 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
4
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 22-04-2025 23:48:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050963
CRM-M-54007-2024
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
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, where the sentence prescribes is more than three years, the
State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail 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,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
21.04.2025
Jyoti-II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2025 23:48:12 :::