Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056414
CRM-M-51085--2023 -1-
214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51085-202 2023
Reserved on : 09.04.2025
Pronounced on: 29
29.04.2025
PARGAT SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu,
Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 150 09.08.2022 Sadar Sri Muktsar 15(c ) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985 Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib
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. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares no criminal antecedents
antecedents.The
The
reply and the custody certificate do not contradict it.
3. The
he facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 09.08.2022,,
based on secret information,
information the Police seized 300 kg of poppy husk from the truck being
driven by Daljit Singh @ Laddu and petitioner who is owner was sitting on the next seat and
250 grams of poppy husk was recovered during the search of another Truck No. PB
PB-30N–
9799.. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the stat
statutory
utory requirements of the
NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has
been falsely implicated in the present FIR. On instructions, he further submits that in case bail
is granted petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or
intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Sections 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He
further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, he ha
hass no objection
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 02:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056414
CRM-M-51085–2023 -2-
if the State files application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that further pre–
trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. The petitioner seeks bail on pre-trial
pre trial custody of more than one year and six months.
REASONING:
7. 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
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 precede
precedents:
1) In Shince Babu v. The State of Kerala, decided on 21 Feb 2024,
MANU/SCOR/27340/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The prosecution case is that Accused No.1 (Liju) was found travelling in a
private bus from Cherthala to Arookutty and contraban
contraband d MDMA, weighing
138.750 gms, was recovered from his conscious possession. The said contraband
was procured by Accused No.1 with the help of Accused No.2 from Bangalore.
The petitioner is nominated as Accused No.4 in the crime. He was arrested on
11.04.2022. The petitioner was granted bail by the Trial Court on 20.09.2022 but
11.04.2022.
on a petition filed by the State of Kerala, challenging the bail order, the High
Court cancelled the petitioner’s bail on 13.06.2023. However, liberty was granted
to the petitioner to apply afresh before the Sessions Court. The petitioner again
applied for bail but his prayer was declined by the Trial Court on 07.07.2023. The
petitioner approached the High Court but his first bail application was dismissed
on 14.08.2023. His second bail application was turned down by the High Court on
09.10.2023. Meanwhile, Accused No.2 was granted bail by the High Court on
11.10.2023. Seeking parity with the co-accused,
co accused, the
thepetitioner
petitioner moved third bail
application, which has been rejected by the High Cour
Courtt vide the impugned order
dated 09.11.2023.
[3]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the
material placed on record.
[4]. It may be seen from para 6 of the impugned order that the High Court, while
declining bail to the petitioner,
petitioner, was largely influenced by the fact that a huge
quantity of contraband, which falls in the category of ‘commercial’, was recovered
and as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. On a specific
query, it is not disputed by learned State counsel that no contraband was recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is
difficult for us to apply the twin test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while
considering the petitioner’s prayer for bail.
[5]. Be that as it may, the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2022 except for the
period from 20.09.2022 to 27.06.2023 when he remained on bail pursuant to the
order passed by the Trial Court/Sessions Court.
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 02:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056414
CRM-M-51085–2023 -3-
[6]. It seems that the investigation is complete and the conclusion of trial will take
some reasonable time. The petitioner’s co co-accused
accused are already on regular
bail/default bail. As per the record, there are no criminal antecedents of the
petitioner.
[7]. Taking into consideration all the attending circumsta
circumstances
nces but without
expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
[8]. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his
furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Cou
Court.
[9]. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every
date of hearing, failing which it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail
granted to him today by this Court.
2) In Sohrab Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13 Aug 2024, SLP (Crl.)
7115-2024,
2024, Hon’ble Supreme Cort holds,
The petitioner is an accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. His bail
application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about one
year and four months in jail. The petitioner and coaccused were found in
possession of 80 grams of MD powder each of which commercial quantity is 50
grams.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has nno
o criminal antecedents and the entire
facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is
made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be relea
released
sed on bail forthwith on the usual
terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court.
3) In Ramlal v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510
9510-2024,
2024,
wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to a first offender afterone year and six
months of custody who was possessing 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as
follows:
The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act and allegation is that 450 gram of smack has been recovered from
Substances
them. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court.
Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6
months in jail.
Heard learned
learned counsel for the petitioner. As per office report dated 13.09.2024, the
service is deemed complete on the sole respondent
respondent-State
State but no one has appeared
for the State.
Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the
petitioner
er has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is
made out for the petitioner.
4) In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl)
8557-2024,
2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 02:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056414
CRM-M-51085–2023 -4-
The petitioner is an accused
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and
29 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is
that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular
bail application was dismissed by the
the High Court. He has already undergone about
1 year six months in jail.
Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
Considering the quantity of the contraband articles and the period of his
incarceration, we are of the opinion that a case of bai
baill is made out for the
petitioner.
5) In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08
08-Nov-2024,
2024, SLP
(Crl) 12225-2024,
12225 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information, the police
conducted a raid in which the petitioner and the co co-accused
accused Rabiul Alam were
arrested and 4 kgs., 920 gms of opium latex was seized.
[4]. It is not in dispute that after filing of chargesheet and framing of charges, the
trial has commenced but only examination-in
examination in-chief of P.W.1 has been completed.
However, there are 12 witnesses, who are proposed to be examined by the
prosecution.
[5]. It may be mentioned that the High Court while declining bail to the petitioner
has directed for conclusion of trial within one year. But it seems that regardless
thereto, the trial has notbeen expedited as no effective hearing took place for the
last 2/3 dates. That being so, the conclusion of trial is likely to take some
reasonable time. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He has
already spent one year and six months in custody. The continued incarceration of
the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.
[6]. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the
fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, we are satisfied
that the conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at
this stage.
6) Bhola Shikari v. The State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 11
11-Nov-2024,
2024, SLP (Crl)
13236-2024,
2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
In connection with FIR No. 150 of 2024 dated 10.03.2024, registered at Police
Station–Sipat,
Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act‘), the
petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2024, as the petitioner along with three others
were found in joint possession of 21 Kgs of Ganja.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State.
respondent
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that final report was
already filed and thereafter, the Court has also framed the charges against them.
In the said circumstances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in
custody since 10.03.2024,
10.03.2024, we are of the considered view that this special leave
petition can be disposed of ordering that the petitioner shall be released on bail,
subject to the stringent terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.
Ordered accordingly.
9. Per the custody certificate dated 08.04.2025,, the petitioner is in custody for 01 year 05
months and 20 days in this FIR.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 02:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056414
CRM-M-51085–2023 -5-
10. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
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.
11. In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047
3047-2024,
2024,
Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
[5].
5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that right
to speedy 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,
h, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges
have been framed. 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
set aside and the appellant is granted bail,
subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court
Court.
12. 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
onstitution of India.
13. Considering the quantity involved and the pre-trial
pre trial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS
Act would not be attracted. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not a legal ground for
denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.
14. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz
viz viz pre
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
fur pre-trial
trial incarceration at this stage
stage.
15. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts 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:
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 20235 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 02:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056414CRM-M-51085–2023 -6-
16. 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
ction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa
Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied
that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
17. 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)
18. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.
19. 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, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police
officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstanc
circumstances
es of the case or
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
20. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to
protect the members of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused wo
would
uld 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. [Thisrest
[Thisrestriction
riction 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 construed as an
intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances
peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall
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
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 02:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056414
CRM-M-51085–2023 -7-
instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also rrestrain
estrain the
accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
21. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and
ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to 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 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.”
22. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08
08-Nov-2024, SLP
(Crl) 12225-2024,
2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 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 bou
bound
nd to face the necessary
consequences.”
23. 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
which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail
bail.
24. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case’s
merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
25. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furni
furnishing
shing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can 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
verify its authenticity and may download and use the
downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 02-05-2025 02:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056414
CRM-M-51085–2023 -8-
26. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
29.04.2025 (ANOOP
ANOOP CHITKARA)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 02-05-2025 02:50:04 :::