Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J
Roman Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
FIR No. 262 | 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H.S. Kehal
For the Respondents: Jasdev Singh Thind

Prolonged pre-trial detention without conviction requires careful consideration of bail rights, balancing personal liberty against public safety, and enforcing stringent conditions to prevent re-offense.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 29, and 37 - Bail application - The petitioner, having been in custody for 1 year and 9 months without prior convictions, filed for bail due to prolonged incarceration - The court considered prior judgments where similar conditions led to bail being granted, emphasizing that continuous imprisonment infringes the right to liberty under Article 21, granting bail subject to stringent conditions to prevent reoffending. (Paras 12, 13, 15, 26)

(B) Bail conditions - The court held conditions must balance the accused's liberty with the necessity of a fair trial, maintaining public safety while adhering to legal standards required by the NDPS Act. (Paras 20, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, charged under the NDPS Act, requested bail after prolonged custody exceeding one year. The police seizure involved 300 grams of heroin, categorized as a commercial quantity under the Act.

Findings of Court:
The conditions for bail were established to protect societal interests while allowing for the petitioner's release based on the specifics of previous cases and the absence of prior criminal records.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the justification for prolonging custody and the necessity for bail in light of the accused's circumstances and previous court rulings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court indicated that prolonged detention without conviction creates a significant constitutional concern and underscored the need for stringent conditions to balance the risk of re-offending. The decision to grant bail was reflective of a measured approach to justice where the liberty of the individual is preserved.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail sought under bnss for drug possession. (Para 1 , 3 , 11)
2. petitioner's request for bail under prolonged incarceration. (Para 2)
3. arguments for bail based on prolonged custody and conditions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. importance of similar case precedents in granting bail. (Para 7)
5. legal importance of pretrial custody under article 21. (Para 8 , 12)
6. principle of proportionality in bail conditions. (Para 9 , 20)
7. court observes precedents for granting bail after prolonged custody. (Para 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
8. conditions and final ruling for the bail application. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 27)

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

262 06.12.2023 Gharinda, District 21, 23, 25, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act Amritsar (Rural)

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], seeking regular bail.

2. As per paragraph 14 of the bail application, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 06.12.2023, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 300 grams of heroin 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's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.

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

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Special Judge or Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

REASONING

8. As per paragraph 5 of the status report, the name of the contraband is heroin and its weight is 300 grams.

9. Dealing in 300 grams of heroin in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985 , constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Substance Name	Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar/ Diacetylmorphine
Quantity detained	300 Gram
Punishable U/s	S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985
Quantity type	Commercial
Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate	120.00%

Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985
S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, Notification No. & dated 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 11/14/1985 821 (E)

Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985

S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, Notification No. & dated 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 11/14/1985 821 (E)

10. 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 set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

11. As per the custody certificate dated 08.09.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of 01 year and 09 months.

12. 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

1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha , SLP (Crl) 4169-2023 , Para 4, decided on

13 July 2023

13. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHANOOP CHITKARA, JRoman Singh – AppellantVersusState of Punjab – RespondentFIR No. 262 | 2023

Prolonged pre-trial detention without conviction requires careful consideration of bail rights, balancing personal liberty against public safety, and enforcing stringent conditions to prevent re-offense.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J
Roman Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
FIR No. 262 | 2023