Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Gurprabh Singh @ Prince - Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 50716 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Nikhil Ghai Adv., Ms. Malini Singh Adv., Mr. Rajinder Singh Bhatta DAG, Punjab

The court can relax bail provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for first-time offenders even if the quantity is above the commercial threshold, considering procedural deficiencies.

Headnote:(A) The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - NDPS Act - Sections 21, 22, 29, 61, 85 - Bail granted in case involving marginally above commercial quantity of narcotic substance - Petitioner is a first-time offender, detained since 13.09.2023, with no prosecution witnesses examined to date. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Applicability of bail provisions - Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court can relax provisions for first-time offenders facing marginal quantity offenses, where judicial discretion can be exercised based on case specifics. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner apprehended with 261 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, alleged to be sourced from his brother. Arguments highlight violation of mandatory search provisions and first-time offender status.

Findings of Court:
The court granted bail given procedural violations and the petitioner’s status.

Issues: The legality surrounding recovery and implications of the NDPS Act on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail can be granted where there is no significant prior conduct or risk of abscondment, particularly when statutory provisions can be relaxed.

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the narcotic substance case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contentions regarding bail arguments. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's evaluation of prior case law on bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. granting bail despite section 37 provisions. (Para 8)
5. procedural requirements for bail. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS (The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0100 dated 13.09.2023 under Sections 21 /22/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Gurprabh Singh @ Prince (petitioner) came to be apprehended with 261 grams of narcotic substance, subsequently, found to contain the sale ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’.

During the course of investigation, he disclosed that his brother- Jaskaran Singh @ Jass (since granted the concession of bail vide order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur, Annexure P-2) had provided him the intoxicant substance for further sale.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act regarding the search and seizure. No independent witness of recovery was joined during the course of the recovery proceedings. Since the recovery of 261 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride was marginally above the commercial quantity of 250 grams, the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody since 13.09.2023 and none of the 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, he was entitled to the grant of bail, moreso, when a co-accused, namely, Jaskaran Singh @ Jass had been granted the similar concession.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the offences of this kind are on the rise and commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the accused because of which Section 37 of the Act would be a bar to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was a first-time offender, in custody since 13.09.2023 and none of the 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the cases of ‘ Sukhchain Singh @ Manga Versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-7857-2022 decided on 04.04.2022, Pardeep Singh versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-46244-2022 decided on 19.01.2023, Hari Yadav @ Haiya versus State of Punjab (CRM-M-37645-2021)’ decided on 11.11.2022, ‘Jang Kanwar Versus State of Punjab (CRM-M-53415-2021)’ decided on 19.01.2022, ‘ Shankar Prashad Chanau Versus The State of Punjab, CRM-M-24090-2020 , decided on 27.08.2020, Gurpreet Kumar Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-17021-2021 , decided on 31.08.2021, Salim Versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-42436-2020 , decided on 24.02.2021, Gagandeep Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-3055-2021 , decided on 27.01.2021, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41039-2019 , decided on 26.02.2020, Dalbara Singh Versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-47880-2022 decided on 16.01.2023’, and Vivek Watts versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-13791-2022 decided on 15.02.2023, where the recovery from the accused was marginally above the commercial quantity for the respective contraband in each case, the Court granted bail to the accused therein.

7. In the present case, the alleged recovery from the petitioner is of 261 grams of a narcotic substance containing the sale of ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’ which is marginally above the commercial quantity of 250 grams. The petitioner is a first time offender with no other case under the NDPS Act registered against him. In this situation, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed to an extent and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail, moreso, when he is in custody since 13.09.2023 but none of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and a co-accused has already been granted the similar relief.

8. Thus, without commenting upon the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document