inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshal Lal vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055495
1
CRM-M-53748-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-53748-2024
Reserved on: 21.04.2025
Pronounced on: 29.04.2025
Roshan Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 603 29.08.2024 HTM Hisar, 22(C) of NDPS Act District Hisar
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 21 of the bail petition as well as para 10 of the reply dated
05.11.2024, accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1 241 09.07.2020 8, 22, 29 of NDPS ActRawatsar,
Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan
2 183 06.08.2021 22C, 27A of NDPS Act Sadar Ratia, Fatehabad
3 386 22.08.2024 22C, 27A, 29 of NDPS City Fatehabad,
Act Fatehabad
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On
29.08.2024 based on secret information, the Police seized 37500 tablets of Alprazolam
from the possession of accused-Ravidutt Sharma, who later on named the petitioner as
seller of the drug. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory
requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS 2023.
4. The petitioner’s counsel made the following arguments:-
1
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0554952
CRM-M-53748-2024
“That after registration of the present FIR petitioner filed the present ball
application and this Hon’ble Court issued notice to the respondent state
after that state counsel fill the reply in the present case and there is no
evidence against the petitioner except the alleged disclosure statement of
co-accused and this Hon’ble Court granted interim bail to the petitioner
on 13.11.2024 and also direct to join the investigation on 18.11.2024 at
10.00 AM and in compliance of the above said order petitioner join the
investigation on 18.11.2024 in the present case and the police
implicated/arrested the petitioner in other case i.e FIR No.386 dated
22.09.2024 on the same allegation and same story line to line. And
thereafter the present matter came to hearing on 11.12.24 and the
respondent state file reply dated 06.12.2024 and the state counsel
submitted that the petitioner is in custody in some other case and the
matter was adjourned for 14.01.2025 and this Hon’ble court clarified that
in case the investigator concerned wants the petitioner to join
investigation, it shall be permissible to file appropriate application with
the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for temporary custody of the petitioner
within the jail premises where he is confined. Thereafter the matter comes
for hearing on 14.01.2025 and the matter was adjourned for 13.02.2025
interim order to continue till the next date of hearing. However, state may
join petitioner Into investigation as he is already in custody in another
case. And thereafter also the petitioner join Investigation as per the
direction of this Hon’ble Court and the matter was taken up on 13.02.2025
and the respondent state counsel seeks further time to file fresh status
report and the matter was adjourned for 05.03.2025 interim order to
continue till the next date of hearing and thereafter the respondent state
file reply dated 26.02.2025 same is taken on record and the matter was
adjourned for 10.03.2025 interim order to continue till the next date of
hearing. On 10.03.2024 again direct to file status report and the matter
was adjourned for 18.03.2025 interim order to continue. On 18.03.2025
state counsel file status report dated 17.03.2025 exact same which is
earlier filed on 26.02.2025 only the date is changed i.e 17.03.2025 and the
matter was adjourned for 20.03.2025 and the interim order to continue till
the next date of hearing. Thereafter on 20.03.2024 the matter is come to
hearing and the this Hon’ble court this Hon’ble court considering the
every status report and found no evidence against the petitioner and this
Hon’ble Court observed in para No.1 to 6 and directed to petitioner to join
the investigation from 27.03.2025 to 29.03.2025 and the matter was
adjourned for 08.04.2025. thereafter on 08.04.2025 petitioner filed
application for place on record the annexure P-3 to P-5 which the2
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0554953
CRM-M-53748-2024
judgment of acquittal and case status of acquittal and the disclosure
statement of other case i.e FIR No.386 dated 22.08.2024 in which the
petitioner is arrested on 18.11.2024 after join Investigation in the present
case.
That it is pertinent to mention here that even after arrest in the above said
FIR nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and the police only to
complete the target and formality of the investigation challan filed in FIR
No.386 dated 22.08.2025 and the petitioner is file regular bail which in
pending in the and is yet to be listed.
This fact is clearly showing that how the police implicated innocent and
poor person to save the actual culprits because in the present case is
alleged recovery is showing to the huge quantity i.e 37500 tablets with
manufacter name batch number date everything with the police but even
the police did not join or call any one or inquired from them who and how
this tablets to be sold because the petitioner is nor the manufacter or
medical shop or worker any where in such type.”
5. Counsel further 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.
6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply dated 05.11.2024 and also
the reply dated 05.04.2025.
REASONING:
7. An analysis of the above would lead to the following outcome.
8. The State has filed the first response which bears the date of 05.11.2024. In para7
of the said reply it was mentioned that 37500 tablets were recovered from Ravi Dutt
Sharma who had named the petitioner as its seller however, this Court was not satisfied
with contents of the reply and vide order dated 13.11.2024 this Court had directed the
petitioner to join investigation and asked the State to file a fresh status report mentioning
the evidence collected so far. The concerned DySP filed the reply dated 06.12.2024. It
would be appropriate to refer to following portion of the reply, which reads as follows:-
“That is important to mention here that, during investigation when CAF
ID of mobile number 8377897403 used by the petitioner/accused was
obtained, it was found that this mobile number was issued in the name of
Amir Bano wife of Yusuf, resident of E-13/A-438-B, North East, Delhi.
That petitioner/accused confessed during investigation that this mobile
number was issued in the name of his neighbor Amir Bano but he used this
mobile number. That investigating officer also recorded the statement of3
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0554954
CRM-M-53748-2024
Amir Bano in this regard, in which she stated that petitioner/accused
Roshan is her neighbour. About a year ago he told her that his identity
card has been lost, you get a SIM card in your name on any of your IDs
and give it to him. When his ID is made, he will get a SIM in his name and
give it back to her. She believed and got SIM number 8377897403 taken
on her ID and gave it to petitioner/accused Roshan. Later she told
petitioner/accused Roshan many times but he did not return the Sim card
to her. Roshan used this SIM. Copy of statement of Amir Bano is annexed
as Annexure R-5.
That during investigation when mobile call details was obtained, then it
was found that the petitioner/accused contacted from his mobile number
8377897403 to co-accused Ravi Duttt’s mobile number 90345-26987 on
dated 08.07.2024 three times about 375 seconds, 87 seconds and 31
seconds respectively.”
9. Thus, in the said reply, investigator tried to link the petitioner with the main
accused through call details. After that on 20.03.2025, this Court had passed another
detailed order which reads as follows:-
“The investigation conducted, and the evidence collected against the
petitioner are referred in the status report dated 17.03.2025 filed by
Additional Superintendent of Police, Hisar. Perusal of the same reveals
that further investigation is also required because of following reasons:
1). The evidence collected thus far consists of disclosure from the other
accused. Such type of evidence is subject to the legislative restrictions
imposed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and
Section 23 of the BSA, 2023.
ii). Even after investigation, the police did not collect evidence such as
call records, the petitioner’s visits with the other accused, bank
transactions, other business dealings, digital evidence, etc.
2. After reviewing the evidence collected thus far and considering the
seriousness of the crime with transborder connections, this Court is of the
considered opinion that further investigation is necessary in this case.
3 Given above, investigation is necessary to collect evidence regarding
call details, financial transactions, location, connections with the co-
accused, evidence of people in the vicinity, social media connections, etc.
qua the petitioner.
4 To enable the petitioner to join investigation without any duress or
coercion, the petitioner makes a case for continuing the order of stay of
arrest until further order. The Commissioner of Police/SP concerned is to
file a fresh status report mentioning the evidence collected against the
4
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055495
5
CRM-M-53748-2024
petitioner.
5. This Court has granted stay of arrest; however, if the petitioner is found
to be in custody in any other case, this order granting a stay of arrest will
not be valid or enforceable and will be automatically recalled.
6. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation from 27.03.2025 to
29.03.2025 at 10 a.m. in the concerned police station and after that as and
when called upon to do so by the Investigator. The petitioner will be
considered in deemed custody under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, and Section 23 of BSA, 2023. Throughout the investigation, the
petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree methods, inappropriate
language, inhumane treatment, and so on. If the petitioner fails to comply,
the protection will be revoked on the next date.
7. List on 08.04.2025.”
10. Thereafter, another status report dated 05.04.2025 was filed by the Superintendent
of Police, Hisar. It would be appropriate to refer to following portion of the said status
report which reads as follows:-
“3. That briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29.08.2024,
accused Ravidut Sharma was apprehended by the police while in
possession of 50 boxes/packets of Alparazolam Tablets IP-0.5 mg and
Alprasafe-0.5 (10 strips in each box and 75 tablets in each strip i.e, total
37,500 tablets) based on which the present case/FIR No.603 dated
29.08.2024 was registered under section 22-C of NDPS Act at P.S. HTM
Hisar, District Hisar against the accused person namely Ravidutt Sharma.
4. That during initial investigation of the case name of the
petitioner/accused was added in the present case on the basis of disclosure
statement dated 30.08.2024 of the co-accused namely Ravidutt Sharma. It
was disclosed by the accused Ravidutt Sharma that he alongwith the
petitioner/accused was confined in Hisar Jail-2 in connection with supply
of intoxicant tablets and in this manner he got acquaintance with the
petitioner/accused. Petitioner/accused provided his mobile No.87439-
03160 to co-accused Ravidutt Sharma and told him to contact him when
he gets released from jail. After getting bail in 2023, he contacted the
petitioner/accused from his mobile No.94160-63296 and met him in Delhi.
They hada conversation with regard to intoxicant tablets and the
petitioner/accused assured that he will provide the intoxicant tablets as
per his requirement through transport. He paid Rs.37,500/- in cash to the
petitioner/accused and petitioner/accused sent the recovered intoxicant
tablets through Bhartiya Transport at Jahaj Bridge, near Thandi Sadak,5
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0554956
CRM-M-53748-2024
Hisar. Copy of disclosure statement of accused Ravidutt Sharma is
appended herewith as Annexure R-1.
4. That during investigation, the investigating officer moved application
before Cyber Cell, Hisar for obtaining CDR of mobile No.90345-xxxxx
(accused Ravidutt Sharma) and of mobile Nos. 83778-xxxxx & 87439-
xxxxx of petitioner/accused Roshan Lal. On 17.09.2024, a record was
obtained from New BhartiTransport Company, from which the parcel of
intoxicant tablets was booked in the name of the accused Ravidutt Sharma,
with the nickname RD, by the petitioner/accused, and the same was taken
into police possession by the investigating officer via a separate recovery
memo. From perusal of the record, it transpired that the parcel was
booked vide bilty No.16527 dated 27.08.2024 in the name of RD, and the
same was delivered through vehicle No. HR-39E-6177. The accused,
Ravidutt Sharma, signed as receiver of the parcel and also mentioned his
mobile number 90345-26987. Copy of record qua the parcel is appended
herewith as Annexure R-2.
5. That during course of hearing of present petition vide order dated
13.11.2024 this Hon’ble High Court was pleased to directed the
petitioner/accused to join in investigation of the case. In compliance of
order dated 13.11.2024 passed by this Hon’ble High Court the
petitioner/accused was joined into investigation of the case on 18.11.2024
wherein he disclosed that, he came in touch with co-accused Ravidutt
Sharma in the year 2022-23 as both of them were confined in Hisar Jail
No.2. It was also disclosed by the petitioner/accused that he had two Sim
cards i.e. Sim No.8743903160 (in name of his wife Sunita) and Sim
No.8377897403 (in the name of his neighbour Amir Bano). On 27.08.2024
he booked a parcel of intoxicant tablets in the name of RD from New
Bhartiya Transport, Naya Bazar Delhi and informed co-accused Ravidutt
Sharma on phone to pick the parcel. Copy of interrogation of the
petitioner/accused dated 18.11.2024 is appended herewith as Annexure R-
3.
6. That during investigation, Customer Application Form of mobile
number 8377897403 was obtained and the same was found to be issued in
the name of Amir Bano wife of Yusuf, resident of E-13/A-438-B, North-
East Delhi. Amir Bano was joined in the investigation of the case, and her
statement was recorded wherein she stated that mobile No.83778-97403
was obtained by the petitioner-accused Roshan in her name while making
the excuse that he lost his ID card & and that the said SIM card was used
by the petitioner/accused only.
7. That on 13.10.2024 record from New Bhartiya Transport Company,
6
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0554957
CRM-M-53748-2024
Shop No.4076, New Bazar, Delhi was obtained. Perusal of the record
revealed that on 27.08.2024, the parcels were booked for Hisar by the
Company through Challan No.4097 dated 27.08.2024. The entry of the
parcel as booked by the petitioner/accused for Hisar is having entry at
serial No.5 vide bilty No.16527, and the said parcel was delivered through
a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-39E-6177 at New Bhartiya
Transport, Jahaj Pul, Hisar. Copy of record obtained from New Bhartiya
Transport Company, Delhi is appended herewith as Annexure R-4.
8. That on 13.10.2024, the investigating officer recorded the statement of
Karambir Singh, son of Ramdev, Manager of New Bhartiya Transport,
Delhi. He, in his statement, disclosed that on 27.08.2024, a person,
namely Roshan, booked a parcel in the name of Ravidutt, a resident of
Hisar, and his short name was mentioned as RD. After booking the parcel,
a yellow receipt was handed over to him. He also disclosed that he didn’t
know the whereabouts of Roshan, nor did he know that the said parcel
contained intoxicant tablets. However, he stated that if the said Roshan
was brought before him, he could identify him. Copy of statement of
Karambir is appended herewith as Annexure R-5.
9. That on 15.10.2024 record qua manufacture Company of recovered
intoxicant tablets was received from Euphoria India Pharmaceuticals,
Badi, Himachal Pradesh, through post and the same was taken in police
possession by the investigating officer. The record revealed that the
recovered tablets were sold to M/s M.K. Medical Agency, Godhra District,
Panchmahal Gujrat, by Euphoria India Pharmaceuticals Company.
Consequently, a record from M/s M.K. Medical Agency, Godhra District,
Panchmahal Gujrat, was obtained, and perusal of the record showed that
the recovered tablets were further sold to Cinderella “Pharma Shop No.20,
Samruddhi Rescum Makar Puram, Vadodara Gujrat. For obtaining the
record from Cinderella Pharma Shop No.20, Samruddhi Rescum Makar
Puram, Vadodara Gujrat correspondence was made by the investigating
officer. However, the Cinderella Pharma Shop No.20, Samruddhi Rescum
Makar Puram, Vadodara Gujrat was found to be not in existence at the
given address.
10. That on 03.01.2025, opinion was sought from the Drug Inspector qua
the recovered intoxicant tablets i.e. Alprazolam 0.5 mg. In opinion dated
03.01.2025 vide office memo No. DCOH-1/2025/03, the Drug Inspector
stated that the recovered tablets Alprazolam falls under Sr. No.178 of
NDPS Act. Copy of report of Drug Inspector is appended herewith as
Annexure R-6.
7
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0554958
CRM-M-53748-2024
11. That during further investigation, record of petitioner/accused and co-
accused Ravidutt Sharma was obtained from Hisar Jail-2 and perusal of
same revealed that accused Ravidutt Sharma was confined as prisoner
from 04.10.2022 to 05.05.2023, whereas, petitioner/accused was confined
as prisoner from 27.02.2023 to 01.05.2023. Copy of record of the Hisar
Jail-2 qua the petitioner/accused and co-accused Ravidutt is appended
herewith as Annexure R-7.
12. That during investigation CDR of the mobile No.9034526987 of
accused Raviduttand mobile No.83778-97403 of petitioner/accusedwas
perused. It revealed that the petitioner/accused was in touch with accused
Ravidutt Sharma in the following manner:-
Date From To
01.07.2024 83778-xxxxx 90345-xxxxx
2 Outgoing
calls
08.07.2024 83778-xxxxx 90345-xxxxx
3 outgoing calls
13. Apart from call details, the locations chart of the petitioner/accused
and the co-accused Ravidutt Sharma, bank account details of the
petitioner/accused and co-accused Ravidutt Sharma have been obtained
and perused by the investigating officer, but no additional evidence
surfaced on these aspects.
14. That in para No.5 of the order dated 20.03.2025 this Hon’ble High
Court was pleased to observe that, “this Court has granted stay of arrest;
however, if the petitioner is found to be in custody in any other case, this
order granting a stay of arrest will not be valid or enforceable and will
automatically recalled. “That the petitioner/accused at present confined in
judicial custody in case/FIR No.386/2024 registered at P.S. City
Fatehabad, under section 22-C, 29, 27-A of NDPS Act. Under Trial.
15. That the petitioner/accused in FIRNo.386/2024, registered at P.S. City
Fatehabad disclosed that he is having mobile No.78381-66098, which he
bought from his known Kuldeep son of Balbir. The call details of accused
Ravidutt’s mobile No.90345-26987 revealed that the petitioner/accused
was in touch with the accused Ravidutt from the mobile No.78381-66098
in following manner:-
Date From To
19.07.2024 78381-xxxxx 90345-xxxxx
1 Outgoing call
8
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055495
9
CRM-M-53748-2024
22.07.2024 78381-xxxxx 90345-xxxxx
1 Outgoing call
24.07.2024 78381-xxxxx 90345-xxxxx
1 Outgoing call
29.07.2024 78381-xxxxx 90345-xxxxx
1 Outgoing call
11. An analysis of the above said evidence clearly indicates and connects the
petitioner with the dealing of drugs. The quantity involved was massive and the
explanation is offered by the petitioner do not override the requirements of Section 37 of
NDPS Act, whose legal validity has been upheld by the Courts. Even if the petitioner’s
initial implication was based on disclosure statement but petitioner’s liberty was never
curtailed because of such, an appropriate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to join
investigation and the investigation was to be conducted so that in case there was no
evidence against the petitioner or insufficient evidence, his liberty is not curtailed. An
analysis of the latest reply filed by the Superintendent of Police, clearly indicates massive
evidence which is clinching and prima facie connecting the petitioner with the drugs
recovered from Ravi Dutt Sharma. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to bail.
12. Given the above, the petitioner has, prima facie, failed to satisfy the conditions of
section 37 of the NDPS Act to make a case for bail.
13. In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077-
2022, decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows:
[10]. Thus, both the twin conditions need to be satisfied before a
person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs or
psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condition is
to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a
stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court
must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the
accused is not guilty of such offence, and is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. If either of these two conditions is not met, the
ban on granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds”
means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates
substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty
of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such
an offence, the Court still cannot give a finding on assurance that the
accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant
of bail or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary
from case to case, depending upon its facts.
[30]. From the summary of the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS
Act, while granting bail involving commercial quantities, the following
fundamental principles emerge:
(a). In case of inconsistency, S. 37 of the NDPS Act prevails
over S. 439 CrPC. [Narcotics Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991
(1) SCC 705, Para 6].
9
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055495
10
CRM-M-53748-2024
(b). The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the
question of granting bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi
v. AhmadalievaNodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(c). The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act provide the
legal norms which have to be applied in determining whether a
case for grant of bail has been made out. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla,
2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12].
(d). In case the Court proposes to grant bail, two conditions are
to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the standard
requirements under the provisions of the CrPC or any other
enactment. [Union of India v. Niyazuddin SK &Anr,
2017:INSC:686 [Para 7], (2018) 13 SCC 738, Para 7].
(e). Apart from granting opportunity to the Public Prosecutor,
the other twin conditions which really have relevance are the
Court’s satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
[N.R. Mon v. Md. Nasimuddin, (2008) 6 SCC 721, Para 9].
(f). The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being
not guilty has to be more than prima facie grounds, considering
substantial probable causes for believing and justifying that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Customs, New
Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(g). The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision
requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is
not guilty of the alleged offence. [State of Kerala v. Rajesh,
2020:INSC:88 [Para 21], AIR 2020 SC 721, Para 21].
(h). Twin conditions of S. 37 are cumulative and not
alternative. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004)
3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(i). At the bail stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to
weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as
to whether or not the accused has committed an offence under the
NDPS Act and further that he is not likely to commit an offence
under the said Act while on bail. [Union of India v. Rattan Mallik
@ Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624, Para 14].
(j). If the statements of the prosecution witnesses are believed,
then they would not result in a conviction. [Babua v. State of
Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566, Para 3].
(k). Merely recording the submissions of the parties does not
amount to an indication of a judicial mind or a judicious
application of mind. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165
[Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12].
(l). Section 37 departs from the long-established principle of
presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person until
proved otherwise. [Union of India v. Sanjeev v. Deshpande,
(2014) 13 SCC 1, Para 5].
(m). While considering the application for bail concerning
Section 37, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not
10
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:055495
11
CRM-M-53748-2024
guilty. [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC
798, Para 11].
(n). The confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the
NDPS Act. [Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu,
2020:INSC:620, (2021) 4 SCC 1]
(o). In the absence of clarity on the quantitative analysis of the
samples from the laboratory, the prosecution cannot be heard to
state at this preliminary stage that the accused possessed a
commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated
under the NDPS Act. [Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India
2021:INSC:877 [Para 11], 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1235, Para
10].
(p). When there is evidence of conscious possession of
commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, such accused is
not entitled to bail given Section 37 of the Act as contemplated
under the NDPS Act. [State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid
Ahmad Arimutta, 2022:INSC:26 [Para 11], 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 47, Para 12].
(p). Bail must be subject to stringent conditions. [Sujit Tiwari
v. State of Gujarat, 2020:INSC:101 [Para 12], 2020 SCC Online
SC 84, Para 12].
[31]. Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the
infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section 37 placed in the
statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified
categories, including the commercial quantity; however, it creates
hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed,
the rigors no more subsist, and the factors for bail become similar to
the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC.
14. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points
towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of
crime would also not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the
petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
15. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
16. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
29.04.2025
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
11
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 01:53:30 :::
