CRM-M-51085- 214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PARGAT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, FIR No. Dated 150 09.08.2022 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 of 2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused reply and the custody certificate do not contradict it. 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On based on secret information driven by Daljit Singh @ Laddu and petitioner who is owner was sitting on the next seat and 250 grams of poppy husk was recovered during the search of another Truck No. PB 9799. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the stat NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. On instructions, he further submits that is granted petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Sections 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, he ha -2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51085-202 Reserved on : 09.04.2025 Pronounced on: 29 ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. Dated Police Station 09.08.2022 Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares no criminal antecedents reply and the custody certificate do not contradict it. he facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On secret information, the Police seized 300 kg of poppy husk driven by Daljit Singh @ Laddu and petitioner who is owner was sitting on the next seat and 250 grams of poppy husk was recovered during the search of another Truck No. PB . The Investigator claims to have complied with all the stat NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. On instructions, he further submits that petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Sections 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, he ha -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 2023 Reserved on : 09.04.2025 29.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT ANOOP CHITKARA , Advocate for the petitioner. Sections 15(c ) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985 The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court declares no criminal antecedents.The he facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 09.08.2022, 300 kg of poppy husk from the truck being driven by Daljit Singh @ Laddu and petitioner who is owner was sitting on the next seat and 250 grams of poppy husk was recovered during the search of another Truck No. PB-30N- . The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. On instructions, he further submits that in case bail petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Sections 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, he has no objection The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court The , the truck being driven by Daljit Singh @ Laddu and petitioner who is owner was sitting on the next seat and - utory requirements of the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has in case bail petitioner shall not indulge himself in the offence involving the commercial or intermediate quantity or the offence which falls under Sections 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He s no objection Renu Bala 2025.05.01 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51085- if the State files application for cancellation of trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to 6. The petitioner seeks bail on pre REASONING: 7. 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 pe put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8. However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precede 1) In Shince Babu v. The State of Kerala, decided on 21 Feb 2024, MANU/SCOR/27340/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The prosecution case is that Accused No.1 (Liju) was found travelling in a private bus from Cherthala to Arookutty and contraban 138.750 gms, was recovered from his conscious possession. The said contraband was procured by Accused No.1 with the help of Accused No.2 from Bangalore. The petitioner is nominated as Accused No.4 in the crime. He was arrested on 11.04.202 on a petition filed by the State of Kerala, challenging the bail order, the High Court cancelled the petitioner's bail on 13.06.2023. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to applied for bail but his prayer was declined by the Trial Court on 07.07.2023. The petitioner approached the High Court but his first bail application was dismissed on 14.08.2023. His second bail 09.10.2023. Meanwhile, Accused No.2 was granted bail by the High Court on 11.10.2023. Seeking parity with the co application, which has been rejected by the High Cour dated 09.11.2023. [3]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record. [4]. It may be seen from para 6 of the impugned order that the High Court, while declining bail to the petit quantity of contraband, which falls in the category of 'commercial', was recovered and as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. On a specific query, it is not disputed by learned from the conscious possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is difficult for us to apply the twin test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the petitioner's prayer for bail. [5]. Be period from 20.09.2022 to 27.06.2023 when he remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court/Sessions Court. -2023 if the State files application for cancellation of his bail. He trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. The petitioner seeks bail on pre-trial custody of more than 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. However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precede In Shince Babu v. The State of Kerala, decided on 21 Feb 2024, MANU/SCOR/27340/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The prosecution case is that Accused No.1 (Liju) was found travelling in a private bus from Cherthala to Arookutty and contraban 138.750 gms, was recovered from his conscious possession. The said contraband was procured by Accused No.1 with the help of Accused No.2 from Bangalore. The petitioner is nominated as Accused No.4 in the crime. He was arrested on 11.04.2022. The petitioner was granted bail by the Trial Court on 20.09.2022 but on a petition filed by the State of Kerala, challenging the bail order, the High Court cancelled the petitioner's bail on 13.06.2023. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply afresh before the Sessions Court. The petitioner again applied for bail but his prayer was declined by the Trial Court on 07.07.2023. The petitioner approached the High Court but his first bail application was dismissed on 14.08.2023. His second bail application was turned down by the High Court on 09.10.2023. Meanwhile, Accused No.2 was granted bail by the High Court on 11.10.2023. Seeking parity with the co-accused, the application, which has been rejected by the High Cour dated 09.11.2023. [3]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record. [4]. It may be seen from para 6 of the impugned order that the High Court, while declining bail to the petitioner, was largely influenced by the fact that a huge quantity of contraband, which falls in the category of 'commercial', was recovered and as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. On a specific query, it is not disputed by learned State counsel that no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is difficult for us to apply the twin test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the petitioner's prayer for bail. that as it may, the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2022 except for the period from 20.09.2022 to 27.06.2023 when he remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court/Sessions Court. -2- his bail. He further contends that further pre- trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. the reply. trial custody of more than one year and six months. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. titioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents: In Shince Babu v. The State of Kerala, decided on 21 Feb 2024, MANU/SCOR/27340/2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The prosecution case is that Accused No.1 (Liju) was found travelling in a private bus from Cherthala to Arookutty and contraband MDMA, weighing 138.750 gms, was recovered from his conscious possession. The said contraband was procured by Accused No.1 with the help of Accused No.2 from Bangalore. The petitioner is nominated as Accused No.4 in the crime. He was arrested on 2. The petitioner was granted bail by the Trial Court on 20.09.2022 but on a petition filed by the State of Kerala, challenging the bail order, the High Court cancelled the petitioner's bail on 13.06.2023. However, liberty was granted apply afresh before the Sessions Court. The petitioner again applied for bail but his prayer was declined by the Trial Court on 07.07.2023. The petitioner approached the High Court but his first bail application was dismissed application was turned down by the High Court on 09.10.2023. Meanwhile, Accused No.2 was granted bail by the High Court on accused, thepetitioner moved third bail application, which has been rejected by the High Court vide the impugned order [3]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the [4]. It may be seen from para 6 of the impugned order that the High Court, while ioner, was largely influenced by the fact that a huge quantity of contraband, which falls in the category of 'commercial', was recovered and as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. On a specific State counsel that no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is difficult for us to apply the twin test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while that as it may, the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2022 except for the period from 20.09.2022 to 27.06.2023 when he remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court/Sessions Court. - The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. titioner must satisfy the twin conditions However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted In Shince Babu v. The State of Kerala, decided on 21 Feb 2024, [2]. The prosecution case is that Accused No.1 (Liju) was found travelling in a d MDMA, weighing 138.750 gms, was recovered from his conscious possession. The said contraband was procured by Accused No.1 with the help of Accused No.2 from Bangalore. The petitioner is nominated as Accused No.4 in the crime. He was arrested on 2. The petitioner was granted bail by the Trial Court on 20.09.2022 but on a petition filed by the State of Kerala, challenging the bail order, the High Court cancelled the petitioner's bail on 13.06.2023. However, liberty was granted apply afresh before the Sessions Court. The petitioner again applied for bail but his prayer was declined by the Trial Court on 07.07.2023. The petitioner approached the High Court but his first bail application was dismissed application was turned down by the High Court on 09.10.2023. Meanwhile, Accused No.2 was granted bail by the High Court on petitioner moved third bail t vide the impugned order [3]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the [4]. It may be seen from para 6 of the impugned order that the High Court, while ioner, was largely influenced by the fact that a huge quantity of contraband, which falls in the category of 'commercial', was recovered and as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. On a specific State counsel that no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is difficult for us to apply the twin test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while that as it may, the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2022 except for the period from 20.09.2022 to 27.06.2023 when he remained on bail pursuant to the Renu Bala 2025.05.01 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51085- [6]. It seems that the investigation is complete and some reasonable time. The petitioner's co bail/default bail. As per the record, there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. [7]. Taking into consideration all the attending circumsta expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. [8]. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Cou [9]. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, failing which it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him today by this Court. 2) In Sohrab Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 7115-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Cort holds, The petitioner is an accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. His bail application was dismissed year and four months in jail. The petitioner and coaccused were found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder each of which commercial quantity is 50 grams. Considering the fact that the petitioner has n facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be relea terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court. 3) In Ramlal v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to a first offender afterone year and months of custody who was possessing 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as follows: The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substan them. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 months in jail. Heard learne service is deemed complete on the sole respondent for the State. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner. 4) In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 8557-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, -2023 [6]. It seems that the investigation is complete and some reasonable time. The petitioner's co bail/default bail. As per the record, there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. [7]. Taking into consideration all the attending circumsta expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. [8]. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Cou [9]. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, failing which it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him today by this Court. In Sohrab Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Cort holds, The petitioner is an accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. His bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about one year and four months in jail. The petitioner and coaccused were found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder each of which commercial quantity is 50 Considering the fact that the petitioner has n facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be relea terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court. Ramlal v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to a first offender afterone year and months of custody who was possessing 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 450 gram of smack has been recovered from them. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 months in jail. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As per office report dated 13.09.2024, the service is deemed complete on the sole respondent for the State. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the er has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner. In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, -3- [6]. It seems that the investigation is complete and the conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time. The petitioner's co-accused are already on regular bail/default bail. As per the record, there are no criminal antecedents of the [7]. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the [8]. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. [9]. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, failing which it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail In Sohrab Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 13 Aug 2024, SLP (Crl.) The petitioner is an accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. His bail by the High Court. He has already undergone about one year and four months in jail. The petitioner and coaccused were found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder each of which commercial quantity is 50 Considering the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court. Ramlal v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510-2024, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to a first offender afterone year and six months of custody who was possessing 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic ces Act and allegation is that 450 gram of smack has been recovered from them. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 d counsel for the petitioner. As per office report dated 13.09.2024, the service is deemed complete on the sole respondent-State but no one has appeared Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the er has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) the conclusion of trial will take accused are already on regular bail/default bail. As per the record, there are no criminal antecedents of the nces but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the [8]. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his [9]. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, failing which it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail decided on 13 Aug 2024, SLP (Crl.) The petitioner is an accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. His bail by the High Court. He has already undergone about one year and four months in jail. The petitioner and coaccused were found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder each of which commercial quantity is 50 o criminal antecedents and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is sed on bail forthwith on the usual 2024, six months of custody who was possessing 450 grams of smack (Heroin), and the holds as The petitioner and the other accused persons are accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic ces Act and allegation is that 450 gram of smack has been recovered from them. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, he approached this Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 6 d counsel for the petitioner. As per office report dated 13.09.2024, the State but no one has appeared Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the er has no criminal antecedents, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is In Sabat Mehtab Khan v. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) Renu Bala 2025.05.01 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51085- The petitioner is an ac 29 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular bail application was dismissed by t 1 year six months in jail. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties. Considering the quantity of the contraband articles and the period of his incarceration, we are of the opinion that a case of bai petitioner. 5) In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 (Crl) 12225 [2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information, the police conducted a raid 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 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 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. already spent one year and six months in custody. The continued incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. [6]. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the fact that the petitioner does not that the conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at this stage. 6) Bhola Shikari v. The State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 11 13236-2024, Hon’ble Supreme In connection with FIR No. 150 of 2024 dated 10.03.2024, registered at Police Station- Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), the petitioner were found in joint possession of 21 Kgs of Ganja. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent It is submitted by already filed and thereafter, the Court has also framed the charges against them. In the said circumstances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.03. petition can be disposed of ordering that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the stringent terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 9. Per the custody certificate dated months and 20 days -2023 The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular bail application was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year six months in jail. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties. Considering the quantity of the contraband articles and the period of his incarceration, we are of the opinion that a case of bai petitioner. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 (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 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 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 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. already spent one year and six months in custody. The continued incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. [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 conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at this stage. Bhola Shikari v. The State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 11 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, In connection with FIR No. 150 of 2024 dated 10.03.2024, registered at Police -Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), the petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2024, as the petitioner along with three others were found in joint possession of 21 Kgs of Ganja. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that final report was already filed and thereafter, the Court has also framed the charges against them. In the said circumstances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.03.2024, we are of the considered view that this special leave petition can be disposed of ordering that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the stringent terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Ordered accordingly. custody certificate dated 08.04.2025, the petitioner is in custody for months and 20 days in this FIR. -4- cused for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular he High Court. He has already undergone about Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties. Considering the quantity of the contraband articles and the period of his incarceration, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information, the police in which the petitioner 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 in-chief of P.W.1 has been completed. However, there are 12 witnesses, who are proposed to be examined by the [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. [6]. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the have any criminal antecedents, we are satisfied that the conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at Bhola Shikari v. The State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 11-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) In connection with FIR No. 150 of 2024 dated 10.03.2024, registered at Police Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), the was arrested on 10.03.2024, as the petitioner along with three others were found in joint possession of 21 Kgs of Ganja. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel the learned counsel appearing for the State that final report was already filed and thereafter, the Court has also framed the charges against them. In the said circumstances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in 2024, we are of the considered view that this special leave petition can be disposed of ordering that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the stringent terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. , the petitioner is in custody for 01 year 05 cused for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and allegation is that 275 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has been recovered from him. His regular he High Court. He has already undergone about Considering the quantity of the contraband articles and the period of his l is made out for the 2024, SLP [2]. The allegations are that upon receipt of a secret information, the police accused Rabiul Alam were [4]. It is not in dispute that after filing of chargesheet and framing of charges, the P.W.1 has been completed. However, there are 12 witnesses, who are proposed to be examined by the [5]. It may be mentioned that the High Court while declining bail to the petitioner 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 He has already spent one year and six months in custody. The continued incarceration of [6]. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the have any criminal antecedents, we are satisfied that the conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at 2024, SLP (Crl) In connection with FIR No. 150 of 2024 dated 10.03.2024, registered at Police Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), the was arrested on 10.03.2024, as the petitioner along with three others Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel the learned counsel appearing for the State that final report was In the said circumstances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in 2024, we are of the considered view that this special leave petition can be disposed of ordering that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the stringent terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. 01 year 05 Renu Bala 2025.05.01 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51085- 10. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constituti liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1. 11. In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047 Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, though, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable length of time. There is no antecedent involving the appellant. [6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is s subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court 12. Given the above, the petitioner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to Constitution of India. 13. Considering the quantity involved and the pre Act would not be attracted. denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 14. Given the penal provisions invoked viz primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability fur 15. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from CONDITIONS: 1Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169 July 2023 -2023 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 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047 Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, 5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, h, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable length of time. There is no antecedent involving the appellant. [6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court Given the above, the petitioner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to onstitution of India. Considering the quantity involved and the pre-trial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not a legal ground for of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169 -5- The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental on and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-2024, 5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, h, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable length of time. There is no antecedent involving the appellant. et aside and the appellant is granted bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court. Given the above, the petitioner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to bail under Article 14 of the trial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not a legal ground for of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental on and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS 2024, 5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, h, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable length of et aside and the appellant is granted bail, Given the above, the petitioner’s pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial bail under Article 14 of the trial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not a legal ground for trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order 2023, Para 4, decided on 13 Renu Bala 2025.05.01 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51085- 16. Given above, 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. 17. 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 appropriate or considers the accused a 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 18. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 19. 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 witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstanc dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 20. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, 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. [Thisrest being imposed based on the preponderance of the 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 sha 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 -2023 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 ction 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. 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 Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstanc dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused wo 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. [Thisrest being imposed based on the preponderance of the 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 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 -6- 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 ction 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. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the 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 Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 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. [Thisrestriction 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 ll 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 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 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 ction 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 While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police es of the case or Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to uld be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. riction is 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 ll 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 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 Renu Bala 2025.05.01 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51085- instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also r accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 21. 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 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 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.” 22. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08 (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 bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bou consequences.” 23. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non this bail before the Trial Court, w 24. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 25. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furni Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also ve downloaded copy for attesting bonds. -2023 instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also r 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 Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three 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 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, 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 bou This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty 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 would not be needed for furni Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. -7- 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 Petition (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 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.” In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP 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 necessary This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of hich shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its rify its authenticity and may download and use the estrain the 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 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 balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in SLP 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 nd to face the necessary This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's shing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its rify its authenticity and may download and use the Renu Bala 2025.05.01 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-51085- 26. Petition allowed disposed of. 29.04.2025 renubala Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2023 Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand (ANOOP Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No -8- in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand CHITKARA) Renu Bala 2025.05.01 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document