Punjab-Haryana High Court
Javraj Singh @ Jugraj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:054691
CRM-M-27690-2024
2024 1
259 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM
CRM-M-27690-2024
Reserved on: 08.04.2025
Pronounced on: 28.04.2025
JAVRAJ SINGH @ JUGRAJ SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 82 19.11.2023 Verka, District 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act Amritsar
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 12 of the bail application, the accused declares that he has no
criminal antecedents:
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 19.11.2023,
based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 1380 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol
Hydrochloride from the petitioner’s
petiti possession and 600 toxicant tablets from the co
co–
accused.. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the
NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated
mplicated in
the present FIR. He is
is in custody since 19.11.2023 and challan was also presented and
thereafter petitioner had applied for grant of regular bail before the trial Court and the same
was dismissed on 22.02.2024. He further prayed for bail by imposing any stringent
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:13:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:054691
CRM-M-27690-2024
2024 2
conditions, on
n instructions he further submits that the petitioner shall not indulge himself in
the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls
under Section 19/24/27A
19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves
himself in the said offences, he has no objection if the State files application for
cancellation of bail.
bail. He further contends that further pre
pre-trial
trial incarceration would cause an
irreversible
sible injustice to the petitioner and his family.
5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as
under:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx
S. The sample parcels of the above stated contrabands recovered from
the present petitioner Javraj Singh @ Jugran Singh @ Yuvraj Singh and
co-accused
accused Daljit Singh and Jasimran Singh were sent to Regional
Testing Forensic Science Laboratory, Amritsar for scientific examination.
The report thereof was received. As per which ‘Tramadol Hydrochloride’
was found present in ingredients of the contrabands and average weight
of tablets was found 199 mg tablet. As such total weight of 1380
intoxicant tablets recovered from the present petiti
petitioner
oner Javraj Singh @
Jugraj Singh @ Yuvraj Singh becomes 274.62 grams and total weight of
600 intoxicant tablets recovered from co
co-accused
accused Daljit Singh becomes
119.4 grams, which is of commercial quantity.”
REASONING:
7. The quantity allegedly involved in this
this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors ofS. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin
conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
8. However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon’ble Supreme Court had
granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents:
1) In Junaid Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) 7708
7708-
2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. It is pointed out that the
the petitioner has been in custody for last more than
18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is then submitted that
only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined and
they have not said anything to connect the petitioner with the crime.
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:13:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:054691
CRM-M-27690-2024
2024 3
[3]. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the concerned
Contraband are medicinal drugs but they are sold for profit. Moreover, it is
of commercial quantity.
[4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the prohibited
medicines (SYP Codectus 100 Bottles (100 Ml each), Cap Pyeevon Spas
medicines
Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules, Spasonof NF 960 capsules,
Capsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144, Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules,
Alprasafe Table 600 Tablets, Pyeevon Spas Plus 32 Capsules).
[5]. Having considered the above and the fact that the trial is unlikely to
conclude on a near date, we are of the view that the petitioner – Junaid Alam
deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail
conditions be imposed by the trial court.
9. 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.
10. In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047
3047–
2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that
right to speedy trial
trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the appellant
has been under incarceration for more than one and a half years, the trial is
yet to start, though, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State
that charges have been framed. Suffice
Suffice it is to state that trial would take
considerable length of time. There is no antecedent involving the appellant.
[6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted
bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by tthe Trial Court.
11. Given the above, the petitioner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial
precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to bail under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Per the custody certificate dated 07.04.2025 the petitioner’s custody in this FIR is of
01 year, 04 months and 15 days. Given the drugs were medicines that attracted violation of
S. 22 of NDPS Act, viz-a-viz
viz pre-trial
trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the
nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no
justifiability further pre-trial
pre trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms
and conditions mentioned in this order.
1
Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169
4169-2023,
2023, Para 4, decided on 13
July 2023
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:13:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:054691
CRM-M-27690-2024
2024 4
13. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the fact
factss and circumstances peculiar to
this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This
order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court’s official webpage.
CONDITIONS:
14. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner
shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa
Magistrate/duty Magistrate.
Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be
satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
15. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following
personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail
Mail id (If available)
16. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.
17. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize,
pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances
of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
18. Given the background
background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to
protect the members of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused would be
one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal.
Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This
restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and
not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:13:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:054691
CRM-M-27690-2024
2024 5
construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other
circumstances peculiar
peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and
ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen
days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However,
subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim
them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned
rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their fami
families,
lies, and
society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the
offense.
19. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform
and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also tto
o block the menace of drug
abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ
Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three
Three-Judge
Judge
bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court
must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be
proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions
must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so,
conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.”
20. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08
08-Nov-2024,
2024, SLP
(Crl) 12225-2024,
2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Par
Paraa 7, “It goes without saying that if
the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted
to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary
consequences.”
21. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable
non bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail
bail.
22. Any observation
ervation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case’s
merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:13:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:054691
CRM-M-27690-2024
2024 6
23. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download
download this order along with case status from the official
web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify
its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use
the downloaded
aded copy for attesting bonds.
24. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
28.04.2025
renubala
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-04-2025 03:13:15 :::
