IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.08.2025 Pronounced on: 26.08.2025 Amrik Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

25 14.02.2025 Sadar Kotkapura, 21(b) of NDPS Act (27-A District Faridkot added later on)

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. In paragraph 13 of the bail application and 8(E) of the status report filed by the State, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Station

1 86 18.08.2011 302/34 IPC Sadar Bathinda

2 117 07.09.2022 21-B/61/85 of NDPS Act Jaito, District Faridkot

3 98 10.10.2024 21-B/27 of NDPS Act Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

4 40 2023 379-B/120-B IPC -

3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 14.02.2025, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 76.25 grams of heroin as well as drug money of Rs.1,50,000/- from possession of petitioner and co-accused. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023.

4. 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 their family.

5. 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 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.

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

7. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

8. 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.

9. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022:PHHC:003983