IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Banti @ Laddu – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-56968 of 2023
Decided On : 12-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. -
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 198 | 28.08.2022 | City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala | 21 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 |
The petitioner incarcerated for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as per the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under section 439 CrPC, 1973 seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 12 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:
| Sr. No. | FIR No. | Date | Offences | Police Station |
| 1. | 219 | 30.08.2018 | 302, 201 and 120-B IPC | City Kapurthala |
3. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
4. While opposing bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that the quantity of contraband involved in the case falls into the commercial category, and given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.
5. 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 history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.
6. Facts of the case are being extracted from reply dated 03.12.2023. Prosecution case is that on 28.08.2022, when the Investigator along with his police party were patrolling near Bridge Sassia Wali Pulli Kapurthala, then he noticed the petitioner along with a woman. On seeing the police party, both of them perplexed and started running towards the street, however, they were chased. In the meantime, the lady threw a polythene bag in the open drain and the petitioner also took something out of his pocket and threw it. However, the police officials were able to nab both of them. The male disclosed his name as Banti @ Laddu and the female disclosed her name as Seema Devi. On checking the articles thrown by them, one polythene bag contained 260 grams of Heroin and another polythene bag contained 40 grams of Heroin.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties.
8. Petitioner seeks bail on two grounds i.e. on medical as well as on merits. On medical grounds, the petitioner's stand is that he is suffering from various medical ailments. On 20.11.2023, this Court had asked the State to ascertain the medical condition of the petitioner and to procure the medical record from the concerned Jail. In the reply dated 03.12.2023, a medical certificate from Central Jail, Kapurthala has been annexed which reads as under:-
"Office: Medical Officer, Central Jail, Kapurthala
The Superintendent
Central Jail, Kapurthala.
| No: 6189 | Date: 01.12.2023 |
Sd/- Medical Officer,
Central
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) 1 SCC 345
State of H.P. v. Prithi Chand (1996) 2 SCC 37
Bail under NDPS Act requires meeting stringent conditions; prior criminal history and commercial quantity of drugs warrant denial of bail.
Mandatory compliance with safeguards in Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the burden placed on the accused under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act and the need for substantial probable causes to grant bail.
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, and failure to adhere to these provisions can lead to the grant of bail.
The court denied bail under the NDPS Act due to the serious nature of drug trafficking charges and failure to meet statutory conditions, emphasizing public safety and legislative intent.
Narcotic substances - Bail dismissed - Section 37 of Act no accused can be released on bail when application is opposed by Public Prosecutor unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground....
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays in trial and legal defects in the prosecution's case.
Strict adherence to the NDPS Act's provisions regarding search and seizure is essential; failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of evidence and grant of bail.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays and procedural lapses.
The court ruled that searches conducted by unauthorized officers under the NDPS Act are illegal, warranting the grant of bail due to prolonged detention without trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.