CRM-M-17717 318 MAHINDER SHAH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 40 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section regular bail. 2. Per paragraph following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. 1. 36 2. 234 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 03.05.2023, when the police official coming on foot from railway line side, who on seeing the police backpack and tr contraband. Subsequently, he was apprised of his rights to Section 50 of NDPS itself. Upon search of the bag thrown by the petitioner, p and he was arrested have complied with all the statutory 17717-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MAHINDER SHAH VERSUS OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. Nikhil Batta, Advocate (through video conferencing) For the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. Dated Police Station 03.05.2023 Anaj Mandi, Patiala 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 Per paragraph 10 of the bail application/custody certificate following criminal antecedents: FIR No. Date Offenses 12.04.2011 20/61/85 of NDPS Act 19.10.2019 325/323/34 IPC The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 03.05.2023, when the police officials were on patrolling coming on foot from railway line side, who on seeing the police backpack and tried to turn away which raised suspicion contraband. Subsequently, he was apprised of his rights to Section 50 of NDPS Act. However, he was satisfied itself. Upon search of the bag thrown by the petitioner, p was arrested. The laboratory also tested the contraband. have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17717-2025 Reserved on: 07.05-2025 Pronounced on:19.05. 2025 ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. Nikhil Batta, Advocate (through video conferencing) Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab. Sections Anaj Mandi, Patiala 18/61 and 85 of NDPS Act The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking application/custody certificate, the accused has the Police Station 20/61/85 of NDPS Act GRP, Sirhind 325/323/34 IPC Tripuri The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On patrolling duty, they noticed one person coming on foot from railway line side, who on seeing the police, flustered and threw raised suspicion that he was carrying some contraband. Subsequently, he was apprised of his rights to get his search conducted under satisfied with the search from the investigator itself. Upon search of the bag thrown by the petitioner, police recovered 04 kg of opium he laboratory also tested the contraband. The Investigator claims to requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1 The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking , the accused has the The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On one person tered and threw he was carrying some under with the search from the investigator olice recovered 04 kg of opium The Investigator claims to requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17717 1973. 4. The petitioner's counsel 5. Counsel for the while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, where the sentence imposed is more than 07 years, he has no objection if the State files application for cancellation of his an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING 7. As per para 8. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. 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 9. The petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same drug and when the quantity involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents: 10. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 SLP (Crl) 12225 [2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information, the police conducted a raid in which the petitioner were arrested and 4 kgs., 920 gms of opium latex was seized. [4]. It is not in dispute that after filing of chargesheet and framing of charges, the trial has commenced but only examination has been be examined by the prosecution. [5]. It may be mentioned that the High Court while declining bail to the petitioner has directed for conclusion of trial within one year. But it seems that rega hearing took place for the last 2/3 dates. That being so, the conclusion of trial is likely to take some reasonable time. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He has already custody. The continued incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. 17717-2025 2 he petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. Counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that he has no objection, if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, where the sentence imposed is more than 07 years, he has no objection if the State files application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING: As per para 10 of reply, the weight and name of drug is The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. 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 he petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same drug and when the quantity involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information, the police conducted a raid in which the petitioner and the co were arrested and 4 kgs., 920 gms of opium latex was seized. [4]. It is not in dispute that after filing of chargesheet and framing of charges, the trial has commenced but only examination has been completed. However, there are 12 witnesses, who are proposed to be examined by the prosecution. [5]. It may be mentioned that the High Court while declining bail to the petitioner has directed for conclusion of trial within one year. But it seems that regardless thereto, the trial has notbeen expedited as no effective hearing took place for the last 2/3 dates. That being so, the conclusion of trial is likely to take some reasonable time. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He has already spent one year and six months in custody. The continued incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. 2 seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. on instructions submits that he has no objection, if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, where the sentence imposed is more than 07 years, he has no objection if the State files application contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause family. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. of reply, the weight and name of drug is 4 kg of opium. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. 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. he petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same drug and when the quantity involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information, the police and the co-accused Rabiul Alam were arrested and 4 kgs., 920 gms of opium latex was seized. [4]. It is not in dispute that after filing of chargesheet and framing of charges, the trial has commenced but only examination-in-chief of P.W.1 completed. However, there are 12 witnesses, who are proposed to [5]. It may be mentioned that the High Court while declining bail to the petitioner has directed for conclusion of trial within one year. But it seems rdless thereto, the trial has notbeen expedited as no effective hearing took place for the last 2/3 dates. That being so, the conclusion of trial is likely to take some reasonable time. The petitioner does not have any spent one year and six months in custody. The continued incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any 2 on instructions submits that he has no objection, if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent conditions and undertakes that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or which falls under Section 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, where the sentence imposed is more than 07 years, he has no objection if the State files application trial incarceration would cause The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin he petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same drug and when the quantity involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial 2024, Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17717 [6]. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the fact that the petitioner does not have any crimi are satisfied that the conditionsprescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at this stage. 11. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 12. Per the custody certificate dated of 01 year, 11 months and 28 days 13. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitu the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act 14. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, case's merits, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, justified at this stage uploaded on this Court's CONDITIONS 15. Given above, 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 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. 16. While furnishing a personal bond, the 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 availabl 4. E- 17. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 18. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not 1Supreme Court of India, 13 July 2023 17717-2025 3 [6]. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the fact that the petitioner does not have any crimi are satisfied that the conditionsprescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at this stage. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. r the custody certificate dated 04.05.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is 01 year, 11 months and 28 days. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitu the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, case's merits, and considering the petitioner’s pre with the other factors peculiar to this case, justified at this stage. However, this order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. CONDITIONS: 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 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. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: AADHAR number Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. Mobile number (If available) -Mail id (If available) This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169 3 [6]. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, we are satisfied that the conditionsprescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the , the petitioner's custody in this FIR is 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 Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the pre-trial custody, weight of the drugs with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not . However, this order shall come into force from the time it is 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. petitioner shall mention the following Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 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, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 3 Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the , the petitioner's custody in this FIR is The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious tion and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section without commenting on the s trial incarceration is not . However, this order shall come into force from the time it is 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 unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must petitioner shall mention the following The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the tamper with the evidence, 2023, Para 4, decided on Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17717 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 s Court. 19. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure rep Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reas 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 wi within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of ac 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 20. 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 Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three 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 eschewe 21. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 SLP (Crl) 12225 that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 22. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner repeats the offence where the quantity involved is mor 17717-2025 4 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 s Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure rep Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction 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 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 of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under 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. 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 n (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three 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 l 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 eschewe In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 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 granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner repeats the offence where the quantity involved is mor 4 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 Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect 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 firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability onable 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, th the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew quittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under 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 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 n (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 l 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.” In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, 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 This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner repeats the offence where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, 4 influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and uch facts to the Police or the Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the ort or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability onable 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, th the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew quittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under 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 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 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 l 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, 2024, 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner e than half of the intermediate, Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17717 or commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27 an application for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall discretion to cancel this bail 23. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24. A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download t as a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded copy to attest bonds. 25. Petition allowed disposed of. 19.05.2025 renubala Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 17717-2025 5 or commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, then an application for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall to cancel this bail. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download the order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded copy to attest bonds. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 5 A of the NDPS Act, then the State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall have Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate he order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 5 the State shall file have Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate he order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the if any, stand Renu Bala 2025.05.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document