CRM-M-55154-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55154-2024 Reserved on: 10.01.2025 Pronounced on: 30.01.2025 Manpreet Singh @ Goga ...Peoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/ons 156 14.11.2021 Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib 22-C, 61, 85 of NDPS Act (Secon 29 of NDPS Act added later on) 1. The peoner incarcerated in the FIR caponed above had come up before this Court under Secon 483 of Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. As per Note-II of the bail applicaon and as per para 9 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta/on 1. 17 21.02.2017 22 of NDPS Act Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib 2. 91 15.04.2019 21 of NDPS Act Mandi Gobindgarh 3. 20 28.02.2021 21-A, 29 of NDPS Act Amloh 3. The facts and allegaons are taken from the status report filed by the State. On Nov 14, 2021, based on prior informaon, the Police seized 1220 loose tablets from the peoner’s possession. 4. The The Invesgator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC 1972. 5. The peoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions and contends that further pre-trial incarceraon would cause an irreversible injusce to the peoner and his family. 1 JYOTI 2025.02.01 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55154-2024 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 7. It would be appropriate to refer to para 4 of the bail peon, which reads as follows: “4. That as per the alleged story of prosecuon secret informaon received against peoner and further alleged recovery is shown 1220 Loose Tablets Alprazolam. (That as per FSL each tablet weighted 121 mg thus total weight comes to 147.62 Grams Alprazolam). That commercial quanty is more than 100 grams, Entry 178 of Schedule.” 8. The quanty allegedly involved in this case is primafacie commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The peoner must sasfy the twin condions put in place by the Legislature under Secon 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 10. However, the peoner is entled 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 UIarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) 7708-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. It is pointed out that the peoner has been in custody for last more than 18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is then submiIed that only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecuon witnesses have been examined and they have not said anything to connect the peoner 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 quanty. [4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the prohibited medicines (SYP Codectus 100 BoIles (100 Ml each), Cap Pyeevon Spas Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules, 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 peoner – Junaid Alam deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail condions be imposed by the trial court. 11. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is 2 JYOTI 2025.02.01 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55154-2024 a siMng Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquiIal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdicon of the Court etc. 12. In Jogindro Bai v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-51218-2024, decided on 29.11.2024, Neutral Citaon No. 2024:PHHC:162096, this Court observed, [17]. Adjudicang a bail peon of an accused with a prior criminal record places a significant and exacng responsibility on courts to exercise judicial discreon in a manner that is both reasoned balanced to consider the countervailing impacts on the freedom of an accused and that of society and free from arbitrariness, as arbitrariness is anthecal to the rule of law. As a natural corollary, consideraon of an accused's criminal history should be limited to cases where convicons have been secured, including those resulng in suspended sentences, and all pending First Informaon Reports (FIRs) in which the peoner is formally arraigned as an accused. However, cases that culminated in acquiIals, discharges, quashed FIRs, withdrawals of prosecuon, or the filing of closure reports by the invesgave authories must be excluded. [18]. Although the legal system upholds the principle that crime, not the individual, should be condemned, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles, and a recidivist oOen operates on precarious ground, where the weight of a significant criminal record creates an increasingly challenging terrain. Nonetheless, where the offense for which bail is sought is minor, such that arrest is generally unwarranted, or bail would ordinarily be inevitable, courts must not deny bail solely as a punive measure intended to serve as a pre-trial deterrent. Such an approach contravenes the judiciary's obligaon to uphold the foundaonal principles of jusce and equity in bail proceedings. Another reason that dis-entles for bail is the criminal antecedents. Considering the bail peon of an accused with a criminal history throws an onerous responsibility upon the courts to act judiciously and reasonably because arbitrariness is the anthesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informaon Reports, wherein the bail peoner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecuon resulng in acquiIal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR, the prosecuon stands withdrawn, or the prosecuon filed a closure report, cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not criminal, for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles. If the peoner is granted bail, he will likely re- indulge in the crime. 13. Given the peoner’s custody, even the past criminal antecedents will not come in the peoner’s way of geMng out on bail. 3 JYOTI 2025.02.01 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55154-2024 14. The prolonged incarceraon, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Arcle 21 of the Constuon and in such a situaon, the condional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Secon 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1. 15. 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 incarceraon for more than one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, though, it is submiIed by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable length of me. There is no antecedent involving the appellant. [6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted bail, subject to the condions that may be imposed by the Trial Court. 16. Given the above, the peoner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial precedents menoned above; the peoner is entled to bail under Arcle 14 of the Constuon of India. 17. As per the custody cerficate dated 07.01.2025, the peoner's custody in this FIR is of two years, eight months and ten days. Given the drugs were medicines that aIracted violaon of S. 22 of NDPS Act, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegaons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jusfiability for further pre-trial incarceraon at this stage. 18. Without commenng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons menoned above, the peoner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 19. Given above, provided the peoner is not required in any other case, the peoner shall be released on bail in the FIR caponed above subject to furnishing bonds to the sasfacon of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepng the surety, the concerned Court must be sasfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 4 JYOTI 2025.02.01 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55154-2024 20. While furnishing a personal bond, the peoner shall menon the following personal idenficaon details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the aIesng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 21. This order is subject to the peoner’s complying with the following terms. 22. The peoner shall abide by all statutory bond condions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The peoner 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. 23. Given the background of allegaons against the peoner, it becomes paramount to protect the detecon squad, members of society, and incapacitang the accused would be one of the primary opons unl the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiIal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restricon is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sancon]. Given the nature of the allegaons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the peoner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunion, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiOeen days of release from prison and inform the Invesgator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the peoner shall be entled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquiIal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricng firearms would insll confidence in the vicm(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeang the offense. 24. The condions menoned 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 Peon (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 condions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proporonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail 5 JYOTI 2025.02.01 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-55154-2024 condions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condions that would result in the deprivaon of rights and liberes must be eschewed.” 25. 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 peoner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the peoner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 26. This bail is condi onal, and the founda onal condi on is that if the pe oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an applica on for cancella on of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 27. Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 28. A cerfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Peoner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aIest it to be a true copy. If the aIesng officer wants to verify its authencity, such an officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for aIesng bonds. 29. Pe//on allowed in terms menoned above. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.01.2025 Jyo/-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 6 JYOTI 2025.02.01 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.