Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the delicate balance between law enforcement and personal liberty in a drug-related case, highlighting how bail considerations hinge not only on the seriousness of the offence but also on principles of proportionality, the presumption of innocence, and the impact of prolonged pre-trial detention.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a chance recovery in which the police allegedly seized 150 grams of heroin from his possession. The investigation report claims compliance with statutory provisions under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner had been in custody for 2 months and 26 days and had no previous criminal record.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Counsel for Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, emphasizing that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and that continued incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to him and his family. It was argued that the quantity recovered constituted intermediate quantity, thereby not attracting the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Petitioner also offered to comply with any stringent conditions, including cancellation of bail in case of repetition of the offence or violation of Section 19, 24, or 27A of the NDPS Act. The counsel submitted that pre-trial detention serves no purpose as the investigation was complete and the trial was likely to take considerable time.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent, represented by the A.A.G., Punjab, opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the offence and recovery of contraband. It was contended that 150 grams of heroin was recovered from the Petitioner’s possession and a further Rs. 2,500 was seized from the same polythene bag, which, according to the investigating agency, constituted drug money. The State urged that the invocation of Section 27A of NDPS Act was proper, and release on bail could hamper investigation and send a wrong signal in drug-related offences.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the recovery involved intermediate quantity, thus “rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply in the present case.” The Court observed that when the quantity is less than commercial, “the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes.”
Relying on precedents, the Court observed that “The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.1 In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial.—Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody?”
Further quoting from Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the Court reaffirmed that “When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.”
The Bench also criticized the police for “forgetting the statutory mandate of S. 23 (1) and (2) of BSA, 2023, invoked the stringent penal provision of S. 27-A just to trigger the legislative restrictions placed on bail through S. 37 of NDPS Act.,” and held that invoking Section 27A NDPS Act for recovery of a petty amount of Rs. 2,500 The Court remarked that such invocation lacked prima facie evidence of financing, directly or indirectly, and therefore Section 37 was not attracted.
Referring to Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court reiterated that bail conditions must be proportionate and have a nexus to the purpose they seek to serve. It also cited Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. State of West Bengal, emphasising that if the petitioner reoffends, the bail concession can be withdrawn.
The decision of the Court:
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, observing that further pre-trial detention was unwarranted. Bail was subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000, surrender of all firearms within 15 days, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses. It clarified that any repeat offence involving a significant quantity or a violation of Sections 19, 24, or 27A of the NDPS Act would justify bail cancellation. The order applied only to the present FIR, with directions for immediate release as per Amit Rana v. State of Haryana
Case Title: Karandeep Singh versus State of Punjab
Case No.: CRM-M No. 45818 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr Justice Anoop Chitkara
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Aayushi and Adv. Umesh Aggarwal
Counsel for the Respondent: AAG Punjab Jatin Kundu
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
