SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Darshan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-18723-2022
Decided On : 05-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sulinder Kumar, AAG, Haryana, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance individual rights with the state's interest in ensuring an uninterrupted investigation and preventing potential influence on witnesses and evidence.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Anticipatory Bail - Sections 15-B, 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) including definitions of commercial and small quantities, minimum and maximum sentences, and bail conditions under Section 37. The court also referenced relevant case laws to interpret the provisions and their applicability to the present case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after being implicated as the seller of poppy husk in a case under Sections 15-B and 29 of the NDPS Act. The police recovered the contraband from a co-accused who named the petitioner during interrogation.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the quantity of the substance involved, the petitioner's criminal antecedents, and relevant case laws to grant bail. It emphasized the need to balance individual rights with the state's interest in ensuring an uninterrupted investigation.

Issues: The main issues were the applicability of bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner's criminal antecedents, and the potential influence on the investigation and witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the quantity of the substance, the petitioner's first-time offender status, and the need to balance individual rights with the state's interest in ensuring an uninterrupted investigation.

Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner bail with specific terms and conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent potential influence on witnesses and evidence.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

97

14.04.2022

Guhla, District Kaithal

15-B and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985

1. On being named by the main accused in his custodial interrogation as the seller of the contraband, the petitioner, apprehending arrest for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as per the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. On Apr 14, 2022, the police recovered 1 kg & 350 grams of poppy husk from the co-accused, Jhirmal Singh, who during his interrogation implicated the petitioner as its seller.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

6. The substance involved in the present case is poppy husk, and weighs 1 kilo gram and 350 grams. Entry no. 110 of the table specifying small and commercial quantities specifies the quantity greater than 50 kg as commercial quantity and lesser than 1000 gram as small. Thus, the quantity allegedly involved in this case is not commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do apply in the present case.

7. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All Sections in the NDPS Act, which specify an offence, also mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes.

8. In Sami Ullaha v Superintendent Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that in intermediate quantity, the rigors of the provisions of Section 37 may not be justified.

9. The petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 3 to 6 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

10. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of re

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top