CRM-M-54407- 220 ( 220 ( 220 ( 220 (3333rd rdrd rd case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Bhagwan Singh State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the off Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act’), at Police Station 2. accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Ac strips of intoxicant Lomotil tablets each strip contains 60 tablets (total 1200 intoxicant Lomotial tablets) without any permit or license recovered from the co -2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Bhagwan Singh versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Tushar Wadhwa, Advocate Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No registered for the offences punishable under Section Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Ac strips of intoxicant Lomotil tablets each strip contains 60 tablets (total 1200 intoxicant Lomotial tablets) without any permit or license recovered from the co-accused of the petitioner 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----54407 54407 54407 54407----2024 2024 2024 2024 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 05 August 05 August 05 August 05, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.121 dated 19.07.2022, ences punishable under Sections 22-C, 29, 61, 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 200 strips of intoxicant Lomotil tablets each strip contains 60 tablets (total 1200 intoxicant Lomotial tablets) without any permit or license were allegedly accused of the petitioner. 1 2024 2024 2024 2024 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent of the for grant of , of the (for short ‘NDPS The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an 200 strips of intoxicant Lomotil tablets each strip contains 60 tablets (total 1200 were allegedly MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-54407- 3. is in custody since submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent Learned counsel has an accused is the disclosure statement of co Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for mor 4. arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular b State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 04.08.2025 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation 01.11.2023. Total only 07 have been examined and 04 have given up till date has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of -2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 11.08.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular b State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate 04.08.2025 in the Court today, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation qua him was carried out and ch . Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 07 have been examined and 04 have given up till date has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely 2 er has iterated that the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. sole basis to array the petitioner as accused, namely Sunil @ Asish. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered . Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate , which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 11.08.2023 whereinafter carried out and challan was presented on 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, only 07 have been examined and 04 have given up till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis accused, namely Sunil @ Asish. As per the 2 er has iterated that the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been . s . Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature Learned State counsel has further submitted that the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and thus, the same ought to be Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through whereinafter allan was presented on 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis As per the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-54407- prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband pertinent to note corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the statement made by the co rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. passed by this Court in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----65094 65094 65094 65094 the ratio decidendi Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Najmunisha, Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR -2024 prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstant statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. At this juncture, it would be apposite passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab 65094 65094 65094 65094----2024 2024 2024 2024 (2025: PHHC:004198) decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; luru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR 3 prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the ept for the said disclosure statement. It is that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole . The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. it would be apposite to refer to a judgment Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab, passed in (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau, 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) luru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR 3 prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the is that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole iated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the disclosure The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of to refer to a judgment passed in after relying upon Tofan Smt. versus State of State by (NCB) luru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-54407- (Criminal) 762; and Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023 thus: principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the 6.2. ve ve ve versus State of Punjab rsus State of Punjab rsus State of Punjab rsus State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:089161) postulates emerge: -2024 (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023 “6.3 It is a well established principle of made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected. Further, this Court in the case of rsus State of Punjab rsus State of Punjab rsus State of Punjab rsus State of Punjab passed in (2025:PHHC:089161) has held thus: “14. As a sequitur to above postulates emerge: (I) (i) A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act. 4 Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has held It is a well established principle of law that a confession accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be aution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. However, as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final ility of the disclosure statement made by a accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected.” Further, this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----33729 33729 33729 33729----2025 2025 2025 2025 As a sequitur to above-said rumination, the following A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of 4 Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special has held law that a confession accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be aution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. Moreover, no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely as regular bail pertains to life and liberty of individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation. The final ility of the disclosure statement made by a accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial in accordance with established this Court cannot remain oblivious to the circumstances under which the petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the petitioner to the offence as well as the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. A prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala Jaswinder Singh alias Kala 2025 2025 2025 2025 said rumination, the following A bail plea on merits; in respect of an FIR under NDPS Act of 1985 involving offence(s) under Section 19 or Section 24 or A thereof and for offence(s) involving commercial quantity; is essentially required to meet with the rigour(s) of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-54407- -2024 (ii) The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative etc. (iii) The rigour(s) of Section 3 when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail II. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law. III. The twin conditions containe are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act i.e. “ for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”: (i) The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case purpose of adjudicating such bail plea. (ii) Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial. (iii) Plea(s) of defence by applicant including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail plea. V. For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) i.e. ‘he is not likely to commit any offence (i) The word ‘likely requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re offending by the bail theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant. (ii) The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail NDPS/other offence canno conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the future. 5 The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant trial custody, the trial is procrastinating is not attributable to such bail-applicant. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in Cr.P.C./BNSS or any other applicable extant law. The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions are required to be satisfied for a bail-plea to be successful. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in of NDPS Act i.e. “there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”: The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant material, including case-dairy, exclusively for the limited purpose of adjudicating such bail plea. Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final adjudication & culmination of trial. Plea(s) of defence by applicant-accused, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be looked into by the bail-Court while adjudicating such bail For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’: likely’ ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re- offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of The entire factual matrix of a given case including the antecedents of the bail-applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. However, the involvement of bail-applicant in another NDPS/other offence cannot ipso facto result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the 5 The rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply to a bail plea(s) on medical ground(s), interim bail on account of any exigency including the reason of demise of a close family relative 7 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of applicant trial custody, the trial is procrastinating The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in d in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipulated in there are reasonable grounds The bail Court ought to sift through all relevant dairy, exclusively for the limited Such consideration, concerning the assessment of guilt or innocence, should not mirror the same degree of scrutiny required for an acquittal of the accused at the final used, if any, including material/documents in support thereof, may be Court while adjudicating such bail For consideration of the condition stipulated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) ’ ought to be interpreted as - applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of The entire factual matrix of a given case including applicant, role ascribed to him, and the nature of offence are required to be delved into. applicant in another result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-54407- 6.3. of the NDPS Act stands diluted. 7. State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 11 months and 21 days certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in therefrom, the petitioner has been convicted in 01 case factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 -2024 (iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant would submit, at such regular time period/interval stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after bei the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 ( has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such matter.” In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted. As per custody certificate dated State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period 01 year, 11 months and 21 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in m, the petitioner has been convicted in 01 case factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 6 Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant-accused a condition that he would submit, at such regular time period/interval as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition enumerated in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). There is no gainsaying that the nature, mode and extent of exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for satisfaction of requirement under Section 37 (ibid) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is nothing but a utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 As per custody certificate dated 04.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 03 more cases; and apart m, the petitioner has been convicted in 01 case. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a 6 Court may, at the time of granting bail, accused a condition that he as may stipulated by the Court granting bail, an affidavit before concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court/Illaqa (Jurisdictional) Judicial Magistrate/concerned Police Station, to the effect that he has not been involved in ng released on bail. In the facts of a given case, imposition of such condition may be considered to be sufficient for satisfaction of condition exercise of power by a Court; while satisfying itself regarding the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act; shall depend upon the judicial discretion exercised by such Court in the facts can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute parameters for ) as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. Making such an attempt is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period Further, as per the said custody ; and apart . However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir Maulana Mohd. Amir ; a MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-54407- Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall conditions: -2024 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. Stat Balraj v. Stat Balraj v. Stat Balraj v. Stat RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any da the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of c and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first workin every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any 7 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Balraj v. Stat Balraj v. Stat Balraj v. Stat Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) e of Haryana, 1998 (3) e of Haryana, 1998 (3) e of Haryana, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any 7 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of & judgments of this Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of e of Haryana, 1998 (3) e of Haryana, 1998 (3) e of Haryana, 1998 (3) e of Haryana, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or te before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the oncerned Police Station phone number without prior The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the g day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-54407- 9. which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 10. 11. opinion on the merits of the case. 12. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. August 05 August 05 August 05 August 05, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2024 offence after his being enlar FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof. In case of breach of any of the a which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 8 offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 8 ged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon foresaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment