CRM-M-12660-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12660-2025 Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Pronounced on: 12.05.2025 Narsi Ram ...Peoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for the peoner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta.on Sec.ons 47 23.05.2022 Tappa Mandi, District Barnala, Punjab 15/29/25 of NDPS Act No.61 of 1985 1. The peoner apprehending arrest in the FIR caponed above has come up before this Court under Secon 482 of Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking ancipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 24 of the bail peon and as per paragraph 10 F of the status report dated 11.03.2025, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta.on 1. 464 28.06.2023 15(c), 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act Ajad Nagar, District Hisar 2. 205 2022 8/15 and 8/25 of NDPS Act Khedapa 3. 37 2018 8/15, 8/29 of NDPS Act Bap, Dis?. Jodhpur 3. The facts and allegaons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: “2. That the brief facts of the case are, that on 23.05.2022 Inspector Baljit Singh, In charge CIA, Barnala, along with other police officials, was present near Grain Market, Ghunas, in connec%on with patrolling and checking of suspected persons. The police party received secret informa%on to the effect that Tarlok Singh son of Piara Singh, Harmeet Singh son of Surjit Singh and Jagsir Singh alias Jaggi son of Buta Singh 1 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 have taken a factory on rent for manufacturing interlock bricks, which is situated adjoining the pipe factory of Piara Lal resident of Dhilwan. Whereas, the said persons are doing illegal ac%vi%es there and also doing the business of selling the poppy husk on a large scale by bringing the same from outer State and stored the same in the said factory. The secret informer also disclosed that they also supplied the same by using their Swi1 car bearing registra%on no. PB-73A-1316 of white color. As the informa%on was credible, a formal FIR was registered ini%ally against Tarlok Singh son of Piara Singh, Harmeet Singh son of Surjeet Singh and Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi son of Buta Singh all residents of Rureke village, District Barnal. 3. That therea1er, a raid was conducted at the above said interlock %le factory and in the said factory, on the right side near the main gate, a Swi1 Car bearing registra%on no. PB-73A-1316 of white color was parked and two people were seen loading a plas%c sack in the trunk of the said car. On seeing the police party, they tried to fled away; however, police officials nabbed them. On being enquired, one person out of the above said two persons disclosed his name and par%culars as Tarlok Singh son of Piara Singh and the other person disclosed his name as Harmeet Singh son of Surjit Singh. That following the prescribed procedure search of car bearing registra%on no. PB-73A-1316 was conducted, which led to recovery of three plas%c bags from the trunk of the car. Further, on the search of go-down, 47 plas%c bags were also recovered. Therea1er, Inves%ga%ng Officer had conducted the search of all the said 50 bags and found that there was poppy husk and pods of poppy plant in all the said bags. On weighing, the weight of each bag was found to be 20 kilograms. Thus, total 1000 kg poppy husk and pods of poppy plant were recovered from the spot. That the accused were arrested and recovered contraband was converted into parcels as per the prescribed procedure and was sent to forensic laboratory for tes%ng. 4. That during interroga%on, on 26.05.2022, accused Tarlok Singh got recovered another 120 kg of poppy husk and pods of poppy plant, in pursuance of his disclosure statement. 5. That during further inves%ga%on, on the basis of interroga%on of the above said accused as well as on the basis of statement of one Mandeep Singh son of Gamdur Singh, recorded under sec%on 161 Cr.PC, accused Baltej Singh son of Piara Singh and Hakam Singh son of Surjit Singh, were nominated as accused in the present case under Sec%on 29 of NDPS Act. 2 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 On 28.05.2022, on the basis of interroga%on of accused Tarlok Singh and Harmeet Singh as well as on the basis of statement of Ram Singh recorded under Sec%on 161 Cr.PC, accused Nazar Singh @ Naja was also nominated as an accused in the present case. During further inves%ga%on, on 30.05.2022 accused Paramjit Singh was nominated as an accused and ini%ally nominated accused Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi was also arrested in the present case. On 03.06.2022, during further inves%ga%on, on the basis of statement of one Swaranjit Singh ex sarpanch son of Mohan Singh recorded under sec%on 161 Cr.PC, accused Balwinder Singh @ Ravi has also been nominated as an accused in the present case. That the accused Paramjit singh was arrested on 10.08.2022 and during interroga%on, he got recovered 3 kg of poppy pods. 6. That the accused Balwinder Singh @ Ravi was arrested in the present case on 18.09.2022 and further during inves%ga%on, the ownership of vehicle bearing registra%on no. PB-73A-1316 was verified as the said vehicle was registered in the name of Tarlok Singh and then offence under Sec%on 25 of NDPS Act was deleted. On conclusion of the inves%ga%on qua accused Tarlok Singh, Harmeet Singh, Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi, Paramjit Singh and Balwinder Singh, challan against them was presented was on 16.11.2022. 7. That during further inves%ga%on, on 23.12.2022, on the basis of statement of one Daljit Kumar son of Ravinder Nath recorded under sec%on 161 Cr.PC, accused Atul Kumar @ Raju was nominated as an accused in the present case and he was arrested in the present case on 27.12.2022. During further inves%ga%on, on 30.12.2022, on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Atul Kumar and statement of one Jashanpreet Singh son of Gurchet Singh, recorded under sec%on 161 Cr.PC, present pe%%oner Narsi Ram has been nominated, as an accused the present case.” 4. During the custodial interrogaon, the co-accused named the peoner, and based on this confession, the invesgator arraigned him as an accused. The peoner approached the Sessions Court for ancipatory bail, which was surprisingly denied. 5. The peoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions and contends that pre-trial incarceraon would cause an irreversible injusce to the peoner and his family. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 3 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following porons of the status report dated 11.03.2025, which read as follows: “C. The Evidence against the Peoner: That in the present case, during police ques%oning, co-accused Atul Kumar disclosed that he was friend of Hakam Singh resident of Dhilwan, as such he became friend of Hakam Singh's rela%ve i.e. Tarlok Singh (main accused/convict). That further the co-accused Atul disclosed that he used to lend money to Tarlok Singh for purchasing poppy husk, who use to return the amount along with interest. That Tarlok Singh also used to give him poppy husk for further retail at cheap price or some%mes use to supply the same through Hakam Singh. That Tarlok Singh used to tell him that the en%re consignments of poppy husk were bought by him from the present pe%%oner i.e. Narsi Ram s/o Narang Ram resident of Newa, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. That further on the same day one independent person, Jashanpreet Singh son of Gurchet Singh resident of Mehta got recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C to the effect inter alia that he had acquaintance with accused Atul Kumar @ Raju who used to run the furniture shop and two to three months ago, while he was at a tavern, he overheard the conversa%on of the accused Atul Kumar with another person, in which he was disclosing that earlier he used to purchase poppy husk from Tarlok Singh and retail the same, but since they all have been apprehended, as such now he is not able to retail poppy husk. That further, he overheard Atul Kumar saying that he will arrange the contact number of Narsi Ram from Tarlok Singh to purchase poppy husk, as Tarlok Singh earlier also used to purchase the en%re consignments of poppy husk from Narsi Ram son Narang Ram r/o Neva District Jodhpur. D. The role of the Peoner: That as per the disclosures made by co- accused Atul Kumar and statement of one independent witness namely Jashanpreet Singh s/o Gurchet Singh r/o Mehta it is established that the present pe%%oner is the king pin of the said supply drug racket of poppy husk and poppy buds. That the present pe%%oner plays a pivotal role in supply and retail of poppy husk in the state of Punjab. It is he who used to supply first hand to accused/convict Tarlok Singh and therea1er Tarlok Singh used to retail the same at higher prices.” REASONING: 8. The name of the peoner has been surfaced on the basis of disclosure 4 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 statement of co-accused Atul Kumar and the said co-accused has already been acqui?ed by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-8), as such, there is no reason to deny him bail. 9. The quanty allegedly involved in this case is 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. 10. For now, the peoner has prima facie sasfied the first condion of secon 37 of the NDPS Act to make a case for bail. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this court will put very stringent condions in this order to ensure that the peoner does not repeat the offense. 11. In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077-2022, decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows: [10]. Thus, both the twin condions need to be sasfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quanty of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condion is to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a stand on the bail applicaon. The second spulaon is that the Court must be sasfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of these two condions is not met, the ban on granng bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substanal probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the condions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, the Court sll cannot give a finding on assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant of bail or denial of bail for possessing commercial quanty would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts. [30]. From the summary of the law relang to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, while granng bail involving commercial quanes, the following fundamental principles emerge: (a). In case of inconsistency, S. 37 of the NDPS Act prevails over S. 439 CrPC. [Narcocs Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991 (1) SCC 705, Para 6]. (b). The limitaons on granng of bail come in only when the queson of granng bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. AhmadalievaNodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7]. (c). The provisions of Secon 37 of the NDPS Act provide the legal norms which have to be applied in determining whether a case for grant of bail has been made out. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12]. 5 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 (d). In case the Court proposes to grant bail, two condions are to be mandatorily sasfied in addion to the standard requirements under the provisions of the CrPC or any other enactment. [Union of India v. Niyazuddin SK &Anr, 2017:INSC:686 [Para 7], (2018) 13 SCC 738, Para 7]. (e). Apart from granng opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin condions which really have relevance are the Court's sasfacon that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [N.R. Mon v. Md. Nasimuddin, (2008) 6 SCC 721, Para 9]. (f). The sasfacon contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be more than prima facie grounds, considering substanal probable causes for believing and jusfying that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7]. (g). The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to jusfy sasfacon that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [State of Kerala v. Rajesh, 2020:INSC:88 [Para 21], AIR 2020 SC 721, Para 21]. (h). Twin condions of S. 37 are cumulave and not alternave. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7]. (i). At the bail stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meculously to arrive at a posive finding as to whether or not the accused has commi?ed an offence under the NDPS Act and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. [Union of India v. Ra?an Mallik @ Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624, Para 14]. (j). If the statements of the prosecuon witnesses are believed, then they would not result in a convicon. [Babua v. State of Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566, Para 3]. (k). Merely recording the submissions of the pares does not amount to an indicaon of a judicial mind or a judicious applicaon of mind. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12]. (l). Secon 37 departs from the long-established principle of presumpon of innocence in favour of an accused person unl proved otherwise. [Union of India v. Sanjeev v. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1, Para 5]. (m). While considering the applicaon for bail concerning Secon 37, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, Para 11]. (n). The confessional statement recorded under Secon 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the 6 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 NDPS Act. [Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020:INSC:620, (2021) 4 SCC 1] (o). In the absence of clarity on the quantave analysis of the samples from the laboratory, the prosecuon cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the accused possessed a commercial quanty of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India 2021:INSC:877 [Para 11], 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1235, Para 10]. (p). When there is evidence of conscious possession of commercial quanty of psychotropic substances, such accused is not entled to bail given Secon 37 of the Act as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimu?a, 2022:INSC:26 [Para 11], 2022 SCC OnLine SC 47, Para 12]. (p). Bail must be subject to stringent condions. [Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, 2020:INSC:101 [Para 12], 2020 SCC Online SC 84, Para 12]. [31]. Sasfying the fe?ers of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the inferle eggs. The stringent condions of secon 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quanty; however, it creates hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed, the rigors no more subsist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail peons under general penal statutes like IPC. 12. The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecuon or even to frame the charges; however, for the purpose of denying bail, the evidence is insufficient. 13. Given the penal provisions invoked, the legal admissibility of evidence collected against the peon, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegaons, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jusfiability for custodial interrogaon or pre-trial incarceraon at this stage. CONDITIONS: 14. Given the above, 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 ancipatory bail. 15. The invesgaon indicates that the peoner is not the main accused, so the peoner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granng bail to the other co- accused with a higher role. 7 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 16. 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 Arresng Officer, and if the ma?er is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sasfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 17. 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 a?esng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 18. This order is subject to the peoner’s complying with the following terms. 19. The pe%%oner is directed to join the inves%ga%on within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Inves%gator. The peoner shall be in deemed custody for Secon 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The peoner shall join the invesgaon as and when called by the Invesgang Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the invesgaon at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecuon will be open to seeking cancellaon of the bail. During the invesgaon, the peoner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 20. 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. 21. Given the background of allegaons against the peoner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detecon squad and incapacitang the accused would be one of the primary opons unl the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acqui?al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restricon is being imposed based on the preponderance of the 8 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 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 fiTeen days from today 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 acqui?al in this case, provided it is 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. 22. 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 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.” 23. In case the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Staon arraigns another secon of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new secon prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the secons menoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secon(s). However, suppose the newly inserted secons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the secons menoned above; then, in that case, the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the peoner noce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 24. 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.” 25. This bail is condional, and the foundaonal condion is that if the peoner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an applicaon for cancellaon 9 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-12660-2025 of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail. 26. Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 27. 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 a?est it to be a true copy. If the a?esng officer wants to verify its authencity, such an officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for a?esng bonds. 28. Pe..on allowed in terms menoned above. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 12.05.2025 Jyo-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 10 JYOTI 2025.05.12 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.