CRM-M-42480 281 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ARUN KUMAR ALIAS BHOLU STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Gurmehar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 047 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up Court under Section 2. Per paragraph criminal antecedents. However, in para 9 of the reply, the petitioner has following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. 1. 97 3. The facts and allegations are taken based on a chan the envelope thrown by the petitioner and 50 grams of heroin was recovered from the envelope thrown by the co with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. The petitioner's counsel 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and he is in custody since 11.04.2024. 42480-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ARUN KUMAR ALIAS BHOLU VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. Gurmehar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. Dated Police Station 15.03.2019 Tanda, District Hoshiarpur The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail. Per paragraph 6 of the bail application, the criminal antecedents. However, in para 9 of the reply, the petitioner has following criminal antecedents: FIR No. Date Offenses 30.07.2019 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On15.03.2019 based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 120 grams of intoxicated powder was from the envelope thrown by the petitioner and 50 grams of heroin was recovered from the envelope thrown by the co-accused Gurmit Lal. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and he is in custody since 11.04.2024. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42480-2024 Date of decision: 19.05.2025. ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. Gurmehar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab. Sections District 21/22/61/85 of NDPS Act The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this , seeking regular bail. the petitioner declares that he has no criminal antecedents. However, in para 9 of the reply, the petitioner has following Police Station 21/29/61/85 of Mukerian, Hoshiarpur reply filed by the State. On15.03.2019, ce recovery, the Police seized 120 grams of intoxicated powder was from the envelope thrown by the petitioner and 50 grams of heroin was recovered from the The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and he is in custody since 11.04.2024. On instructions he further submits before this no criminal antecedents. However, in para 9 of the reply, the petitioner has following , ce recovery, the Police seized 120 grams of intoxicated powder was from the envelope thrown by the petitioner and 50 grams of heroin was recovered from the The Investigator claims to have complied Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in On instructions he further submits Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42480 that he has no objection 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 cancellation of his bail. He further irreversible injustice to the petitioner and 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail under: petitioner is Alprazolam. As such REASONING 7. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. 8. 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, the Hon Supreme Court has granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent: 9. In Junaid Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) 7708-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, 42480-2024 2 that he has no objection if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent onditions 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 in the said offences, he has no objection if the State files application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that p irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to “xxx xxx xxx 8. That it is submitted that the petitioner was rearrested on 11.04.2024 and as per FSL report salt of the intoxicant powder recovered from the petitioner is Alprazolam. As such weighing 120 grams comes within the category of commercial quantity under NDPS Act. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.” REASONING: The quantity allegedly involved in this case is S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. 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, the Hon Supreme Court has granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent: In Junaid Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. It is pointed out that the petitioner has more than 18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is then submitted that only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have not said anything to connect the petitioner with the crime. [3]. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the concerned Contraband are medicinal drugs but they are sold for profit. Moreover, it is of commercial quantity. [4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the prohibited medicines (SYP Codectus 100 Bottles (100 Ml each), Cap Pyeevon Spas Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules, Spasonof NF 960 capsules, Capsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144, Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules, Alprasafe Table 600 Tablets, Pyeevon Spas Plus 32 Capsules). 2 if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent onditions 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 he has no objection if the State files application for pre-trial incarceration would cause an and refers to para 8 of the reply, which reads as xxx 8. That it is submitted that the petitioner was rearrested on 11.04.2024 and as per FSL report salt of the intoxicant powder recovered from the the recovery of intoxicant powder weighing 120 grams comes within the category of commercial quantity under NDPS Act. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.” commercial. Given this, the rigors of 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent: In Junaid Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) [2]. It is pointed out that the petitioner has been in custody for last more than 18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is then submitted that only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have not said anything to connect the he learned counsel for the State would submit that the concerned Contraband are medicinal drugs but they are sold for profit. Moreover, it is of commercial quantity. [4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the ctus 100 Bottles (100 Ml each), Cap Pyeevon Spas Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules, Spasonof NF 960 capsules, Capsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144, Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules, Alprasafe Table 600 Tablets, if while granting bail, this Court imposes any stringent onditions 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 he has no objection if the State files application for trial incarceration would cause an para 8 of the reply, which reads as 8. That it is submitted that the petitioner was rearrested on 11.04.2024 and as per FSL report salt of the intoxicant powder recovered from the the recovery of intoxicant powder weighing 120 grams comes within the category of commercial quantity ommercial. Given this, the rigors of he petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same drug, and when the quantity ’ble In Junaid Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42480 10. Per the custody certificate dated of more than 01 year. 11. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act 12. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the case's merits, and considering the petitioner’s p coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, justified at this stage, subject to the terms and conditions of this order order shall take effect from t CONDITIONS 13. Given above, shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear 14. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E- 15. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 16. 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, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any 1Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of 13 July 2023 42480-2024 3 [5]. Having considered the above and the fact that the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date, we are of the view that the petitioner – Junaid Alam deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the trial court. the custody certificate dated 08.03.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is of more than 01 year. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in 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, without commenting on the case's merits, and considering the petitioner’s pre-trial custody, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, justified at this stage, subject to the terms and conditions of this order take effect from the time it is uploaded to 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 satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa 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 tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169 3 idered the above and the fact that the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date, we are of the view that the Junaid Alam deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the trial 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 trial custody, the weight of the drugs, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this stage, subject to the terms and conditions of this order. However, this he time it is uploaded to this Court's official webpage. 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 duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be , such surety can produce the accused. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court 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, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on the petitioner's custody in this FIR is The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the the weight of the drugs, trial incarceration is not . However, this provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following 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, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any 2023, Para 4, decided on Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42480 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. 17. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramou protect the members of society, 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 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 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 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 families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 18. 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) bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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 eschewed.” 19. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 (Crl) 12225-2024, 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 necessary consequences.” 20. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quantity, or vio NDPS Act, then the State shall apply for cancellation of this bail before the Trial 42480-2024 4 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 paramou protect the members of society, detection squad 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 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 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 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 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 e Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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 ance 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 2024, the 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 necessary consequences.” This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quantity, or vio NDPS Act, then the State shall apply for cancellation of this bail before the Trial 4 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 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 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 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 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 No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge 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 ance 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, SLP 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 commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, then the State shall apply for cancellation of this bail before the Trial 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 nt to and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. 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 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 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 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 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 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 ance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, 2024, SLP 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 to face the This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than A of the NDPS Act, then the State shall apply for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42480 Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the bail. 21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither a merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 22. 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 a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded copy to attest bonds. 23. Petition allowed disposed of. 19.05.2025 renubala 42480-2024 5 Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the Any observation made hereinabove is neither a 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 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, if any, stand Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 5 Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the discretion to cancel this 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 in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE discretion to cancel this case's A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for nd 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 Renu Bala 2025.05.26 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document