Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J
Sukhvir Singh @ Sukhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | FIR No. 559
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kirpal Singh Thakur
For the Respondents: Akshay Kumar
Personal liberty is paramount; pre-trial incarceration requires strong justification, especially under the NDPS Act when dealing with small quantities of contraband.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - NDPS Act - Sections 21, 61, 85, 52A - Anticipatory bail - Bail granted considering the nature of the offense and the quantity of contraband involved. (Paras 1, 6, 9, 24)
(B) Bail Philosophy - The principle of personal liberty, considerations for granting bail, and the judiciary's duty to balance police powers with individual rights are crucial. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a drug-related offense, with the contraband being a small quantity of intoxicant powder. The FIR was filed based on information received from jail authorities regarding the recovery of drugs.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the minimal quantity of contraband, ruled out the application of stricter bail conditions under S. 37 of the NDPS Act, and emphasized the importance of personal liberty while granting bail.
Issues: The main issues included the justifiability of pre-trial incarceration and the implications of the NDPS Act’s provisions on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the law of bail must respect personal liberty, with incarceration prior to conviction being a grave concern. It necessitated balancing state interests with individual rights.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail conditions and requirements for the accused. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 14) |
| 2. small quantity of contraband and implications for bail. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. importance of personal liberty and conditions for bail. (Para 12) |
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral)
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
559 10.11.2023 Divn.No.7, District Police 21, 61, 85 NDPS and 52A Commissionerate, Ludhiana ofPrison Act
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , [ BNSS ], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Per paragraph 16 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No.
FIR No.
Date
Offenses
Police Station
1.
318
8.7.2023
52A(1) Prison Act
Divn.no.7, Ludhiana
2.
85
23.11.2020
22, 29/61/85 NDPS Act
Aur, Distt. SBS Nagar
3.
369
2023
52A Prison Act and 21/61/85 NDPS Act
Divn.No.7, Ludhiana
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the order dated 4.9.2025 passed by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, whereby bail of the petitioner was rejected, which reads as under:-
“Perusal of record shows that FIR in the present case has been registered against the accused on the basis of letter dated 09/10.11.2023 written by Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana to Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana on the allegations that on 09/10-11.2023 at about 08:40 P.M during search of the Jail premises, 03 grams intoxicant powder was recovered from the accused Sukhvir Singh @ Sukhi, who was already lodged in, Central Jail, Ludhiana in case FIR No. 85 dated 23.11.2020, under Sections 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act , P.S. City Aur, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.”
4. The petitioner's counsel contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. He 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 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.
5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
REASONING:
6. Admittedly, the name of the contraband recovered from the petitioner is intoxicant powder (Heroin) and its weight is only 3 grams.
7. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.
8. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a 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 specify an offence and 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 S. 37 of the 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.
9. Quantity of the contraband is small and the FIR relates to the year 2023 and as such, no ground is made out to deny bail to the petitioner. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is ana
