Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjit Singh Alias Gita vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-11126-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11126-2025
Reserved on: 17.03.2025
Pronounced on: 25.03.2025
Harjit Singh @ Gita ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
72 02.08.2020 Dharamgarh, 22/29 of NDPS Act
District Sangrur
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking
regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 20 of the bail application and custody certificate, the accused has
the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1 30 08.05.2014 399/402 IPC and 25 of Sadar, Budhlala
Arms Act
2 31 07.02.2020 22/25/61/85 of NDPS Lehra
Act
3 14 08.02.2020 22/29 of NDPS Act Cheema
4 14 08.02.2020 22-29-61-85 of NDPS Dharamgarh
Act
5 207 02.09.2021 52-A of Prisons Act Kotwali Nabha
6 237 28.12.2023 52-A of Prisons Act City-1 Sangrur
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On
Aug 02, 2020, based on prior information, the Police seized 2000 tablets of Clovidol-100
SR, containing Tramadol Hydrochloride, from the petitioner's possession. The
Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS
Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-11126-2025
4. 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. He further seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused
who has already been granted regular bail by this Court.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
6. Para 3 of the status report reads as follows:
"3. That during the investigation S.I. Narinder Singh SHO, P.S.
Dharamgarh held a nakabandi and in the meantime, one person
was seen coming on the left side of road holding black color
envelope in his left side, who on seeing the police party got
perplexed and threw the polythene envelope on the ground and
strips of intoxicant tablets were scattered on the ground and he was
apprehended and asked about his name and address, who disclosed
his name as Kiratpal Singh @ Kirti son of Sukhwinder Singh son of
Balvir Singh resident of ward no. 10 Lehra P.S. Lehra. On counting,
150 strips each containing 10 tablets total 1500 intoxicant tablets
marka Clovidol 100-SR having batch No. TVD- 20194, MFG. JUN-
2020, EXP, MAY-2023 were recovered. Then parcel was prepared
and sealed by S.1. Narinder Singh with his seal bearing impression
NS and specimen of seals were prepared separately and the said
parcel alongwith specimen of seals were taken into possession.
Accused Kiratpal Singh @ Kirti was arrested at the spot. Then S.I.
Narinder Singh alongwith police party and accused Kiratpal Singh
@ Kirti started nakabandi at canal bridge leading from Rattangarh
Patialvi towards Kanakwal Bhanguan and from the side of village
Kanakwal Bhanguan one person was seen coming on scooty
bearing no. PB75A 0342 make activa white color, holding polythene
envelope black color on the handle of scooty, who on seeing the
police party got perplexed and threw the polythene envelope on the
ground and strips of intoxicant tablets were scattered on the ground
and he was apprehended and asked about his name and address,
who disclosed his name as Harjeet Singh @ Geeta son of Harbans
Singh son of Hazara Singh resident of KotheKashmesh Nagar
Hariyau, P.S. Lehra. On counting, 200 strips each containing 10
tablets total 2000 intoxicant tablets marka Clovidol 100-SR having
batch No. TVD-20194, MFG.JUN-2020, EXP, MAY-2023 were
recovered. Then parcel was prepared and sealed by S.I. Narinder
Singh with his seal bearing impression NS and specimen of seals
were prepared separately and the said parcel alongwith specimen of
seals and above said scooty were taken into possession. Accused
Harjeet Singh Geeta was arrested at the spot.
On 03.08.2020 both the accused and two parcels containing
1500 intoxicant tablets and another one containing 2000 intoxicant
tablets marka Clovidol 100-SR duly sealed with seals NS were
produced before the Court of Komple Dhanjal Ld. JMIC, Sunam
and the Ld. Magistrate after breaking the previous seals both the
bulk parcels were re-sealed with the seal of Court bearing
impression KD and both bulk parcels were ordered to be sent to the
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-11126-2025
FSL, for analysis. Both the bulk parcels duly sealed with seals KD
were sent to FSL on 11.08.2020. As per FSL report No.
1864/2020/Toxi/FSL/Pb, dated 28.10.2020 the ingredient found
present in the parcels was reported as under:-
Tramadol Hydrochloride Found present in the tablets
Average quantity Parcel No.1 = 99.63 mg/tablet
Parcel No.2 = 99.65 mg/tablet
The recovery of 3500 intoxicant tablets effected in this case from both
the accused falls within the ambit of commercial quantity."
8. Para 3 of the status report reproduces the FSL report, which states that the tablets
contained Tramadol Hydrochloride and had an average weight of 402/403 mg/tablet.
9. Prosecution case reveals that initially 1500 tablets were recovered from the co-
accused and later on 2000 intoxicant tablets were recovered from the petitioner. Although
tablets were recovered separately, but the Investigator has clubbed them together. On the
face of it, when the tablets were recovered separately, thus could not have been clubbed,
however this observation is only for the purpose of bail and it shall be permissible for
counsel for the petitioner to raise this legal submission at the time of trial. Even if this
Court presumes that entire 3500 intoxicant tablets were recovered from the joint
possession, still petitioner is in custody for more than 04 years and 05 months.
10. 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.
11. However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon'ble Supreme Court had
granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents:
1) In Junaid Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.)
7708-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. It is pointed out that the petitioner has been in custody for last
more than 18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is
then submitted that only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecution witnesses
have been examined and they have not said anything to connect the
petitioner with the crime.
[3]. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the
concerned Contraband are medicinal drugs but they are sold for
profit. Moreover, it is of commercial quantity.
[4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the
prohibited medicines (SYP Codectus 100 Bottles (100 Ml each),
2025.03.25 17:14 Cap Pyeevon Spas Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules,
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-11126-2025
Spasonof NF 960 capsules, Capsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144,
Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules, Alprasafe Table 600 Tablets,
Pyeevon Spas Plus 32 Capsules).
[5]. Having considered the above and the fact that the trial is
unlikely to conclude on a near date, we are of the view that the
petitioner - Junaid Alam deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered
accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the trial
court.
12. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the
rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. The prolonged incarceration, generally
militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory
embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1.
13. In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-
2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the
premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the
fact that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than
one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, though, it is submitted
by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been
framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable
length of time. There is no antecedent involving the appellant.
[6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant
is granted bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by
the Trial Court.
14. Given the above, the petitioner's pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial
precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to bail under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
15. Per the custody certificate dated 16.03.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is
04 years, 07 months and 10 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 for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
16. 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.
Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on
13 July 2023
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-11126-2025
17. 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.
18. 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)
19. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-11126-2025
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."
23. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024,
SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying
that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail
granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the
necessary consequences."
24. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
25. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
26. 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.
27. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
25.03.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
