Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arshdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-4138-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4138-2024
Reserved on: 16.10.2024
Pronounced on: 24.10.2024
Arshdeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
10 17.01.2023 Sadar Faridkot, District 22 (a) of the NDPS Act
Faridkot, Punjab (Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the
NDPS Act added later on)
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail.
2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On Jan 17,
2023, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 349 loose tablets from the
petitioner's possession.
4. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of
the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
5. The petitioner's counsel 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 status report.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to para 3(c) of the status report, which reads as
follows:
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-4138-2024
"3 (c). The sample parcel was deposited at RTFSL, Bathinda for
chemical analysis on 20-01-2023 and its result was received vide
Report No. 177/2023/Toxi dated: 07-3-2023 and detected the
'Etizolam' in the tablets contained in parcel. Average weight of
one tablet came to 129.53 mg/tablet."
8. Thus, 349 tablets would weigh 45.20597 grams. Dealing in 45.20597 grams of
Etizolam is a punishable offense under the NDPS Act in the following terms:
Substance Name E zolam
Quan ty detained 45.20597 Gram
Quan ty type Commercial
Drug Quan ty in % to upper limit
1808.24%
of Intermediate
Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985
No fica on No S.O.1276(E)
dated 3/23/2021
Sr. No. 238ZZC
Common Name
(Name of Narco c Drug and
Psychotropic Substance E zolam
(Interna onal non-proprietary
name (INN)
Other non-proprietary name ******
4-(2-Chlorophenyl)-2-ethyl-9-methyl-6H-thieno[3,2-f]
Chemical Name
[1,2,4]triazolo[4,3a][1,4]diazepine
Small Quan ty 0.05 Gram
Commercial Quan ty 2.5 Gram
Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii)
NDPS Act, 1985
No fica on No S.O.1275(E)
dated 3/23/2021
Sr. No. 110ZN
Common Name
(Name of Narco c Drug and
Psychotropic Substance E zolam
(Interna onal non-proprietary
name (INN)
Other non-proprietary name ******
4-(2-Chlorophenyl)-2-ethyl-9-
Chemical Name methyl-6H-thieno[3,2-
f][1,2,4]triazolo[4,3a][1,4]diazepine
9. 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 must satisfy the twin
conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
10. In Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Aliul vs The State of West Bengal, Criminal
Appeal No.1202/2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-4138-2024
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of
the petition and learned counsel for the State and perused the
material on record. The appellant is in custody for
approximately 1 year 4 months.
During the course of submission it was pointed out by
the learned counsel for the appellant that in another case the
appellant has been granted bail and therefore, similar relief
may be granted by this Court in this case.
The said submission is in response to the submission
made by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that this
is not the only case in which the appellant has been
apprehended. She further submitted that a huge quantity of
codeine cough syrup was recovered from the premises
(Godown) which has been tenanted by the appellant herein.
Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail
is made out."
11. In Nandalal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal vs The State of West Bengal,
MANU/SCOR/00327/2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
[2]. The allegations are that the petitioner along with other
accused persons were found in possession of two plastic bags
a cough containing a total of 10,000 ml. Of codeine
phosphate narcotic substance. It further syrup, which is
notified as a narcotic substance. It further appears from the
contents of the FIR that the petitioner, who was found in
conscious possession of two white plastic containers both of
which contained 5,000 ml. each of the said liquid. He was
apprehended at the spot and is in custody since then.
[3]. The respondent State of West Bengal has filed its
counter affidavit, in which it is candidly acknowledged that
though the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has
been filed, however, the charges are yet to be framed. The
prosecution proposes to examine 10 witnesses. The
conclusion of trial will, thus, take considerable time. The
petitioner is in custody for the last more than one and a half
years.. He does not have any criminal antecedents.
[4]. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent State, the narcotic substance allegedly recovered
from the petitioner's possession is of commercial quantity'
and, as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
attracted. We have considered the submission.
[5]. Taking into consideration the period already undergone
by the petitioner in custody; the fact that he does not have any
criminal antecedents and also keeping in view that the
prolonged incarceration will not serve the cause of substantial
justice, however, without expressing any views on the merits
of the case, we are inclined to release the petitioner on bail at
this state. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be
released on bail subject to the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court
regularly on each and every date of hearing.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-4138-2024
(iii) In case the petitioner is found involved in any other
case under the NDPS Act, in that event, the bail granted
to him shall stand cancelled automatically and he shall
be liable to surrender immediately.
6. The accordingly. Special Leave Petition stands disposed of
accordingly."
12. In SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal
No.1415 of 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
[5]. We note the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant was arrested on 12.04.2022 and
since then he has been in custody as an under trial prisoner.
Even though charges have been framed, trial is yet to begin
but there is no likelihood of the trial being taken up and
completed within a short period of time. It is also submitted
that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents. It is
also brought to our notice that the High Court while rejecting
the regular bail application had erroneously recorded that 50
ltrs. of codeine phosphate was recovered from the appellant.
This is perhaps a mistake as recovery of only 5 ltrs of codeine
phosphate which was mentioned in the FIR."
13. Per the custody certificate dated 15.10.2024, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is
of 1 year, 8 months and 25 days. Given the drugs were medicines that attracted violation
of S. 22 of NDPS Act, viz-a-viz pre-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 incarceration at this stage.
14. 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.
15. 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. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
16. 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 id (If available)
17. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-4138-2024
18. 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
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
19. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount
to protect the drug detection squad, their family members, as well as the members of
society, 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 firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed
based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty,
i.e., beyond 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 surrender all weapons, firearms, and 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. Restricting
firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would
also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
20. 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-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."
21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
22. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing 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 its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-4138-2024
23. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
24.10.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
