Manoj Kumar vs Narcotics Control Bureau (Ncb) ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3173 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manoj Kumar vs Narcotics Control Bureau (Ncb) ... on 11 March, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034520


CRM-M-58106-2024                                                            1

220
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH

                     CRM-M-58106-2024
                     DATE OF DECISION: 11.03.2025

MANOJ KUMAR                                 ...PETITIONER

                     Versus

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU (NCB) CHANDIGARH AND
ANOTHER
                    ... RESPONDENTS

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:       Mr.Sarbjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

               Dr. Anju Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

               Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab.


        ***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,

2023 for grant of Regular bail to the petitioner in case NCB Crime No. 37

Dated 27/05/2021 under Sections 8/21/22/25/29/35/54/60/61/85 of NDPS

Act, 1985 registered by Narcotics Control Bureau NCB, Chandigarh.

2. Facts

The prosecution's case, as per the evidence, is as follows:

On 27.05.2021, a confidential tip-off was received by Sh. Vikash

Singh, Intelligence Officer in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB),

Sub Zone, Amritsar, indicating that a suspicious parcel, believed to

contain narcotics, had been delivered to the DTDC office in Amritsar.

The parcel had been sent by Mukesh Agency, Baltora, District Jodhpur,

and was intended for delivery to one Inderjit Singh, son of Gurbej

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034520

Singh, a resident of Tarn Taran. It was further stated that Inderjit Singh

would visit the DTDC office at approximately 09:00 a.m. on

27.05.2021 to collect the parcel. Pursuant to this information, when

Inderjit Singh arrived at the DTDC Express Office in Amritsar on the

aforementioned date and collected the suspicious parcel, he was

confronted by the NCB team. Upon being asked to stop, Inderjit Singh

allegedly threw the parcel at the NCB team and fled the scene. Despite

the NCB team's efforts to apprehend him, he managed to escape. Upon

opening the parcel, it was found to contain 14,998 tablets of

"Tramadol." During the investigation, it was determined that the parcel

had been sent by one Ganga Ram from Jodhpur, Rajasthan, to Inderjit

Singh (who remains absconding). Ganga Ram was involved in the

investigation and disclosed that he had been using the mobile phone

number 9928427904 and was posted at Shiv Government Hospital,

Barmer. He further stated that he had booked consignments under the

name of Inderjit Singh. Ganga Ram also revealed that he had been in

contact with one Hanwant Singh (the petitioner) in 2020, who was

allegedly involved in the illegal supply and sale of medicines. Ganga

Ram disclosed that Hanwant Singh had lured him into the narcotics

trade and had supplied consignments on 5-6 occasions for delivery to

addresses provided by him. The consignments were booked under the

name 'Mukesh Agency,' which had already been shut down. Ganga

Ram also provided the mobile number of Hanwant Singh.

3. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034520

whatever recovery was effected was from the main accused Ganga Ram

and Harmant Singh @ Hanwant Singh and not from the present petitioner.

He further submits that main accused Ganga Ram and Harmant Singh @

Hanwant Singh have already been granted concession of regular bail vide

orders dated 25.09.2023 and 18.03.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-

1823-2022 and CRM-M-41218-2023 therefore, prays for grant of regular

bail to the petitioner.

On behalf of the State and counsel for NCB

Short reply by way of affidavit of Rahul Chaturvedi, Jr.

Intelligence Officer of the NCB, Chandigarh has been filed by counsel for

respondent No.1, the same is taken on record. Copy of the same has been

furnished to the counsel opposite.

The learned counsel representing the Narcotics Control

Bureau (NCB) has submitted that the present case involves the

recovery of a substantial quantity of contraband, specifically 14,998

tablets of 'Tramadol.' Furthermore, it has been contended that the

petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved many other FIRs,

although out of those FIRs in 2 FIRs he is on bail, and in one FIR he

has been acquitted. However, it has been acknowledged that the

petitioner has been incarcerated for approximately 2 years, 7 months

and 25 days.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled

out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 2

years, 7 months and 25 days, the main accused have already been granted

concession of bail by this Court, and as per the principle of the criminal

jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved ,

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034520

further, that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and

therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period

would solve no purpose.

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court

rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another",

2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of

bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in

correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is

reproduced as under:-

"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034520

to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658

6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034520

in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.

7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."

Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the

fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of

reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the

accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon

and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC

98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period

of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the

nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction

and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of

tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of

the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon

the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as

"Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on

02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of

India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034520

criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the

same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the

course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in

that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other

pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial

of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all

probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the

concession of bail.

5. Relief

In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the

petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail

and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove

shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the

case.

The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.

                                     (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
                                          JUDGE
11.03.2025
anuradha


Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                  7 of 7