The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed an accused person under the NDPS Act to surrender all his weapons as a pre-bail condition to bail and held that it becomes paramount to protect the drug detection squad, their family members, as well as the members of society that restricting firearms, would instill confidence in the victims, their families, and society.
Brief Facts:
The present application was filed by the petitioner, accused under Sections 21, 21(c), 22, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act 1985 seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prayed for bail imposing any stringent conditions including the surrender of firearms. They further submitted that they shall not claim such declaration as self-incrimination, violation of Article 20/21 of Constitution of India or any other fundamental law/right. It was further contended that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the bail application and contended that the quantity of contraband involved in the case fell in the commercial category.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted in the present case as all three conditions under it have been fulfilled. Further, the court stated that the possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. The court referred to the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) where it was held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.
It was stated that incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal and consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of a firearm. The court further stated that the restriction was being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction.
The court stated that in the present case, given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance, however, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Further, it was stated that restricting firearms would instil confidence in the victims, their families, and society.
The court further relied on the judgement in Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi wherein the Supreme Court held 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 decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and granted bail to the accused.
Case Title: Ravinder Singh vs State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Case No.: CRM-M-53428-2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shiva Khurmi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
