Satnam Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2497

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Satnam Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-18208 of 2023
Decided On : 21-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate; For the Petitioners
For the Respondent: Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, DAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - The petitioner seeks bail for violations of Sections 21(b) and 27 of the NDPS Act due to possession of 65 grams of heroin, classified less than commercial quantity - Pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice. (Para 1, 5, 6)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant of bail - The necessity of balancing the rights of the accused and the need for a fair trial with regard to repeated offences - Principles derived from case law must be accounted for, especially for recidivists. (Paras 7, 9, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possessing 65 grams of heroin, which is less than the commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act. The State opposed the bail application based on the petitioner's criminal antecedents, indicating a tendency to re-offend. (Paras 1, 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
The quantity involved is not commercial, and therefore the rigours of Section 37 do not apply, allowing the petitioner a final opportunity for reform. (Paras 6, 13)

Issues: The court considered the applicability of bail provisions in light of the petitioner's prior criminal history and the nature of the substance involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that restrictions of Section 37 are inapplicable for quantities less than commercial, emphasizing the requirement for courts to act judiciously regardless of recidivist status, with the opportunity for course correction. (Paras 8, 12, 24)

Result: The petitioner is granted bail under specific conditions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks bail under ndps act (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. state opposes bail due to criminal history (Para 4)
3. quantity of contraband is not commercial (Para 5 , 6)
4. court analyzes implications of criminal quantity definitions (Para 7 , 8)
5. judicial responsibility in granting bail to recidivists (Para 9 , 11)
6. final opportunity for reforming petitioner (Para 12 , 13)
7. judicial discretion and considerations for bail (Para 14 , 15)
8. court grants bail with specific conditions (Para 16 , 18)
9. conditions imposed to prevent interference and ensure compliance (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
10. circumstances influencing the bail conditions (Para 22 , 23)
11. bail offers reciprocity for petitioner’s behavior (Para 24)
12. nature of order and implications for police investigations (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
320	26.12.2022	S.T.F., Mohali, District Sri Muktsar Sahib	21 (b) & 27 of NDPS Act.

The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of recovery of 65 grams of heroin, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail on the ground that the quantity of contraband is less than commercial and rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply.

2. In paragraph 13 of the bail application and custody certificate dated 19.04.2023, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offences	Police Station
1	136	17.09.2022	21-A/61/85 NDPS Act	Kabarwala

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. While opposing the bail, the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

Reasoning:

5. On 26.12.2022, the police was patrolling and when the petitioner noticed the police, he became suspicious, which led to his search and 65 grams of heroin.

6. Thus, the quantity allegedly involved in this case is not commercial. Given this, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule.

7. 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 Section 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 recidivist and was previously involved in a case involving 65 grams of heroin. While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal hist