Allowed

Balraj Alias Goli v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2022CRM-M/549/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dispensing with the petitioner's prior criminal history due to his age and circumstances, the court granted bail in an intermediate quantity NDPS case, subject to surrender of weapons, maintaining phone GPS, and optional surety or fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 10,000/ and surety of Rs. 25,000/- or by way of fixed deposit, subject to strict conditions including GPS and weapon surrender.

Balraj Alias Goli Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-549-2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-549-2022

¶5

Reserved on: 04.02.2022 Pronounced on: 09.02.2022

¶6

Balraj alias Goli ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Amit Choudhary, Adocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
444	08.09.2021	City Fatehabad,	20/27-A/61/85 of NDPS Act
		District Fatehabad

¶15

The petitioner under arrest for violating the provisions as mentioned above of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), per the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail on the ground that the quantity of contraband is less than commercial and rigours of S. 37 of NDPS Act do not apply.

¶16

As per paragraph 5 of the bail application and the response of the State, the petitioner has following criminal history:

¶17

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offences under Section	Police Station
1	338	28.06.2019	20/27-A/61/85 of NDPS Act	City Fatehabad
2	362	10.07.2019	21(b)/27-A/61/85 of NDPS Act	City Fatehabad

¶18

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

¶19

On instructions from the concerned police official, Ld. counsel appearing for State opposes the bail because the petitioner has criminal antecedents and submits that

¶20

ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-549-2022

grant of bail encourages the drug peddlers, and the drug menace is spreading day by day.

¶25

REASONING:

¶26

The quantity allegedly involved is 4 kg and 865 grams of ganja, which is less than commercial quantity as per the schedule. As per the table of quantities specifying small and commercial, weight of ganja greater than 20 kg falls under commercial quantity whereas less than 1 kg falls in small quantity. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.

¶27

Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All Sections in the NDPS Act, which specify an offence, also mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes.

¶28

In Sami Ullaha v Superintendent Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC 471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that in intermediate quantity, the rigors of the provisions of Section 37 may not be justified.

¶29

In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

¶30

Given the accused's age and other factors peculiar to this case, it may be appropriate to afford the petitioner a final opportunity to course-correct. Thus, the previous criminal history of the petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage

¶31

ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-549-2022

as a factor for denying bail. Furthermore, a prima facie perusal of paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the bail petition reveals sufficient grounds for granting bail.

¶36

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In GudikantiNarasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

¶37

The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

¶38

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar

¶39

ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-549-2022

to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

¶44

In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana , CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, this Court observed,

¶45

[53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the “Court” and the “Arresting Officer” should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.

¶46

Given above, provided the accused is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-) and shall furnish one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/ Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the Police Station conducting the investigation, and in case of non-availability, any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is capable of producing the petitioner before the Court.

¶47

In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), and hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), made in favour of Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district. Said fixed deposit may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the well-established and stable private banks, with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account.

¶48

The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the applicant's account. If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned court. If made online, its printout, countersigned by the accused, shall be given; and the depositor shall get the online liquidation disabled. The applicant shall inform the concerned branch of the bank at the earliest that it has been tendered as surety. Such information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier about the fixed deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number and FIR number. After that, the applicant shall hand over such proof and endorsement to the concerned police station. Such court shall have a lien over the deposit until the case's closure, or discharged by substitution, or up to the

¶49

ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-549-2022

expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, as the case may be. Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.

¶54

It shall be the total discretion of the applicant to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the applicant to apply to the investigator or the concerned court to substitute fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

¶55

On the reverse page of personal bonds, the attesting officer shall mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number linked with the AADHAR card, the other phone numbers (if any), and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above particulars, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change to the concerned Police Station and the concerned Court. 19. The petitioner to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned Court(s), as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order.

¶56

The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as might be required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶57

The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

¶58

Within ten days of release from prison, the petitioner shall procure a smartphone and inform its IMEI number and other details to the SHO/I.O. of the Police station mentioned above. The petitioner shall always keep the phone location/GPS on the “ON” mode. Whenever the Investigating officer asks to share the location, the petitioner shall immediately do so. The petitioner shall neither clear the location history, WhatsApp chats, call logs nor format the phone without permission of the concerned SHO/I.O. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or

¶59

ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-549-2022

closure of case, whichever is earlier.

¶64

Given the nature of allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within ten days of release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case.

¶65

During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶66

Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands.

¶67

If the petitioner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reduction. Further, if the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.

¶68

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law.

¶69

In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above, then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶70

ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-549-2022

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶75

In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. In case the petitioner again indulges in drugs offences then while considering grant of bail in such cases, the concerned Courts may keep it as a factor that this Court had granted final opportunity

¶76

to the petitioner to mend his ways.

¶77

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order 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. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶78

Petition allowed in aforesaid terms . All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶79

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE February 09, 2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶80

ANJU RANI 2022.02.09 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

¶81

Balraj Alias Goli v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balraj Alias Goli v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Vs State of Haryana

Daljit Singh @ Kala Sidhu Vs State of Punjab

Sohan Lal Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Vs State of Haryana

Anil Vs State of Haryana

Abhimanyu Vs State of Haryana