CRM-M-25466- 229 229 229 229 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 Gurjeet Singh alias Fauji State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No offences punishable under Section and Psychotropic Substances Station Bareta, District Mansa. 2. accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving of poppy-husk 3. is in custody since submitted that the mandatory provi -2025 (O&M) 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: Gurjeet Singh alias Fauji 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. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.65 dated ences punishable under Sections 15(c), 25, 61, 29 and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) Bareta, District Mansa. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving husk allegedly found in possession of the co Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been 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----25466 25466 25466 25466----2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 04 August 04 August 04 August 04, 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. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’) for grant of regular bail to dated 26.07.2023, registered for the 15(c), 25, 61, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 100 kg found in possession of the co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner has further sions of the NDPS Act have not been 1 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent 439 of the Code of for grant of regular bail to registered for the Narcotic Drugs at Police The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an 100 kg Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner has further sions of the NDPS Act have not been MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25466- complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. has further iterated that disclosure statement of co counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 11 4. arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Lea 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 03.08.2025 in Cour 5. the available records of the case. 6. investigation 20.09.2024. Total been examined till date. the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co namely Rachhpal Singh. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband -2025 (O&M) complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner disclosure statement of co-accused, namely counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for 11 months. 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. Lea 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 .2025 in Court, 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 challan was presente 2024. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited been examined till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co namely Rachhpal Singh. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband 2 complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability thereof cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Learned counsel sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the accused, namely Rachhpal Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for . 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 dismissed. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate t, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2024 whereinafter was carried out and challan was presented on prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Rachhpal Singh. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for 2 complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the trial is delayed and rned counsel is the Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature rned 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 I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through whereinafter d on , but none has has been implicated as an accused in , namely Rachhpal Singh. As per the prosecution version, there is no other except for MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25466- the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note statements, in the absence of value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispu present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable 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 like 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 (Criminal) 762; and -2025 (O&M) the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispu present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable 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; Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special 3 the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. 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 accused will be fully tested at the time 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 appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to lihood 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) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special 3 that such disclosure corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary . The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and te that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the accused will be fully tested at the time 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 lihood 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) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR Singh vs. The State of Haryana, bearing Special MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25466- Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023 thus: principles of law. However, while adjudicating a plea for regular bail, this petitioner has been arraigned or implicated, including the nature of the 6.2. versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:089161) postulates emerge: -2025 (O&M) Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023 “6.3 It is a well established principle of law that a confession 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 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 wi 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 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 Further, this Court in the case of versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus State of Punjab versus 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 , 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 e 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-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 inistration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility 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 e 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 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 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 e 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 as an accused solely 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 inistration of justice as also investigation. The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a accused fall within the domain of the trial Court and are to be th 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 e 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 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 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25466- -2025 (O&M) (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 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 has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procras 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 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 IV. For consideration by bail Court of the condition stipula 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 while on bail (i) The word ‘likely requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re offending by the bail theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduc 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 cannot 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 and folly thereof 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. e 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 Section 37(1)(b)(i) 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 judicating 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. f 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) ely 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 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 applicant tinating The twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are in addition to the conditions/parameters contained in e twin conditions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act are cumulative in nature and not alternative i.e. both the conditions ted 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 accused, 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 t 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. r result in the conclusion of his propensity for committing offence in the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25466- 6.3. of the NDPS Act stands diluted. 7. State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 13 days. petitioner is stated to be involved in 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 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of -2025 (O&M) (iii) The bail-Court may, at the time of granting bail, impose upon the applicant would submit, at such reg 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). VI. There is no gainsaying that the nature, 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 exh 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 03.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 13 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case 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 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of 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 n 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 03.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period Further, as per the said custody certificate the more case/FIR. 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 for grant 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 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 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of 6 Court may, at the time of granting bail, accused a condition that he ular 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 n 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 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 austive guidelines 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 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 03.08.2025 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period Further, as per the said custody certificate the . 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 for grant the FIR 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 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25466- 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 s conditions: -2025 (O&M) 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. Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. 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 d 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 remain bound by the following (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 an 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 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 wo 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 offence after his being e FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is 7 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. Balraj v. Balraj v. Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State 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 d 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 hall 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 offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is 7 & judgments of this Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of Akhilesh Singh v. State of State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State of Haryana, 1998 (3) State 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 d 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 hall remain bound by the following The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or y 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 of concerned Police Station phone number without prior The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the rking 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 nlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-25466- 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 04 August 04 August 04 August 04, 2025 , 2025 , 2025 , 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2025 (O&M) 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 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 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 mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon he 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 mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon he 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment