Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J
Hardeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Regular Bail Application | FIR No. 368

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.S. Sidhu
For the Respondents: Jasdev Singh Thind

Prolonged pretrial custody can justify bail under strict conditions despite statutory restrictions in narcotic cases.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 21(c), 29, and 37 - Bail application under Section 483 of BNSS - Petitioner facing charges of possession of 400 grams of heroin - Conditions for granting bail discussed, referencing prolonged pretrial custody and prior rulings - Court determined that conditions for granting bail under Section 37 not fulfilled due to statutory embargo, but provisional release was justified given specific circumstances. (Paras 10-12)

(B) Proportionality of bail conditions - Court indicated that while liberty is essential, necessary conditions must ensure public safety and adherence to law; courts must balance the accused's rights against the potential threat to society. Emphasizes the significance of rehabilitating offenders. (Paras 23-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was apprehended with 400 grams of heroin, leading to this bail request citing prolonged custody as a ground. (Paras 2-5)

Findings of Court:
Bail granted under strict conditions after considering the precedent cases, duration of custody, and absence of previous crimes involving narcotics. (Paras 10-16)

Issues: Whether the prolonged custody and the nature of the offense warrant bail despite the statutory limitations imposed by NDPS Act. (Paras 10-12)

Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that although statutory restrictions apply due to the nature of the offense, the excessive duration of custody alongside precedents indicating bail under similar circumstances justified provisional release. (Paras 12-16)

Result: Petition allowed with specified conditions for bail.

Table of Content
1. the court reviews pre-trial custody and statutory requirements. (Para 1 , 3 , 11 , 13)
2. petitioner seeks bail due to prolonged custody. (Para 2)
3. the defense argues for bail based on prolonged custody and conditions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
4. the court considers prior cases and statutory implications. (Para 8 , 12 , 18)
5. court underscores the relevance of past judicial decisions in bail. (Para 10 , 16)
6. precedent cases support granting bail after long custody. (Para 14)
7. court addresses statutory conditions under ndps. (Para 15)
8. the court grants bail with specific conditions for the petitioner's release. (Para 17 , 19)
9. court establishes conditions for bail balancing liberty and societal safety. (Para 22 , 24)
10. petition allowed with specified conditions. (Para 27)

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

368 28.11.2023 Special Task Force, STF 21(c), 29 of NDPS Act Wing, Jalandhar Range, Distt. SAS Nagar

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court second time under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [ BNSS ], seeking regular bail.

2. As per paragraph 8 of the bail application and as per 7 E of the status report/custody certificate, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Dated	Offenses	Police Station
1.	218	24.07.2023	21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act	STF Distt. SAS Nagar
2.	143	19.12.2016	376, 365, 452, 506, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act	Kulgari

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On

28.11.2023, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 400 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 7A of the status report, the name of the contraband is heroin, and its weight is 400 grams.

9. Dealing in 400 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	400 Gram
Punishable U/s	S.21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985
Quantity type	Commercial
Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate	160.00%

Other non-proprietary name	******
Chemical Name	Diacetylmorphine
Small Quantity	< 5 Gram
Commercial Quantity	> 250 Gram

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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHANOOP CHITKARA, JHardeep Singh – AppellantVersusState of Punjab – RespondentRegular Bail Application | FIR No. 368

Prolonged pretrial custody can justify bail under strict conditions despite statutory restrictions in narcotic cases.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J
Hardeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Regular Bail Application | FIR No. 368