Dismissed¶47

Jatinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2025CRM-M/1000/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana HC, CRM-M No. 1000-2025 (O&M), decided 03.05.2025, Mahabir Singh Sindhu J — NDPS bail dismissed; S.37 twin conditions cumulative; satisfaction more than prima facie on reasonable grounds; 31.020 kg commercial heroin; nomination on disclosure of co-accused Harmeet Kamboj and Paramjit Singh; previous convict S.15 NDPS FIR No. 314/21.09.2023 PS City Ferozepur; custody since 13.10.2023; 22 PWs; S.439 Cr.P.C.; Parwinder Singh SLP (Crl.) 12601-2023 relied on; Punjab drug menace; observations not on merits.

What did the court decide?

Section 37 NDPS Act operates as a non-obstante clause over the Cr.P.C., including Section 439, barring release of a person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity unless its conditions are met. ¶35

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail pending trial under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.07 dated 07.01.2023 registered under Sections 21(c), 23, 29 NDPS Act (commercial quantity). +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

¶35

Key takeaways

The twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act are cumulative and not alternative.ratio¶36
Satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) that the accused is not guilty must be recorded on the basis of reasonable grounds, and must be more than prima facie.ratio¶36
Petitioner, being a previous convict, his credentials cannot be said to be clean.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail pending trial under S.439 Cr.P.C. read with S.37 NDPS Act — FIR No.07 dated 07.01.2023, PS Sadar Fazilka (SS 21(c), 23, 29 NDPS Act; S.25 Arms Act, 1959 added later) — 31.020 kg heroin (commercial in nature) allegedly recovered from co-accused Harmeet Kamboj and Paramjit Singh; petitioner nominated solely on co-accused disclosure; previous convict in FIR No. 314 dated 21.09.2023 (S.15 NDPS Act, PS City Ferozepur); in custody since 13.10.2023; S.173 report presented, charges yet to be considered; 22 PWs cited. Held: S.37 is a non-obstante clause overriding Cr.P.C. incl. S.439; its twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative; satisfaction under S.37(1)(b)(ii) must rest on reasonable grounds stronger than prima facie; given the previous conviction and the drug menace ruining Punjab (courts to be highly circumspect, especially towards repeat offenders — relying on Parwinder Singh @ Parminder Kumar @ Vicky v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) 12601-2023, SC, 14.12.2023), the Court declined to record twin-test satisfaction; petition dismissed; observations not an expression of opinion on merits; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

CRM-M No. 1000-2025 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

202

¶4

CRM-M No. 1000-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.05.2025

Jatinder Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

¶11

Present : Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

¶15

Present second petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.07 dated 07.01.2023, registered under Sections 21(c), 23, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’), [Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 added later on], registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka.

¶16

Allegations are that 31.020 kg. heroin (commercial in nature) was recovered from Harmeet Kamboj as well as Paramjit Singh and petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure made by above coaccused.

¶17

Learned State counsel has produced custody certificate dated 02.05.2025, which is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate

¶18

place.

¶19

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.07 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M No. 1000-2025 (O&M) 2

¶21

Contends that petitioner is in custody since 13.10.2023; report under Sections 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented, but charges are yet to be considered. Further contends that there are total 22 PWs cited by the prosecution, thus, trial will take sufficient long time. Again contends that neither petitioner is named in the FIR; nor any recovery has been effected from him; rather nominated on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused.

¶22

Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer while submitting that although petitioner is not named in the FIR, but he has been nominated on the basis of disclosure made by both the coaccused i.e. Harmeet Kamboj and Paramjit Singh. Further submits that petitioner is a previous convict in FIR No. 314 dated 21.09.2023, under Section 15 of NDPS Act, Police Station City Ferozepur and in view of the specific bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act, petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

¶24

book.

¶25

Before proceeding further, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the same read as under:-

¶26

Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—

¶27

( 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

¶28

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

¶29

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—

¶30

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.07 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M No. 1000-2025 (O&M) 3

¶32

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

¶33

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶34

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”

¶35

Aforesaid Section, is in the nature of non-obstante clause to Cr.P.C. including Section 439 there of and which, inter alia , lays down that no person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶36

Both the above conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The law is well settled that requirement of satisfaction in terms of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) (ibid) regarding the accused being not guilty is to be recorded on the basis of reasonable grounds and that should be more than prima facie .

¶37

It is not in dispute that initially, petitioner was not named in the FIR; but during the course of investigation, it surfaced that he is a part of racket and the petitioner was nominated as an accused.

¶38

It is not in dispute that petitioner is a previous convict, thus, his credentials cannot be said to be clean.

¶39

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to record the twin test satisfaction in favour of the petitioner as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶40

Also noteworthy that the menace of drugs has completely

¶41

HARISH KUMAR2025.05.07 19:53 13. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

CRM-M No. 1000-2025 (O&M) 4

¶43

ruined the State of Punjab and which needs to be dealt with sternly. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Parwinder Singh @ Parminder Kumar @ Vicky Vs.

¶44

State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) 12601-2023, decided on 14.12.2023, has held as

¶45

under:-

¶46

“5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the parameters of granting bail in a case under special statutes like NDPS Act may not be liberally construed in the instant case. We say so taking notice of the fact that the State of Punjab is reeling under the grip of drug menace. There are several drug lords whose roots are identifiable in the State of Punjab, and who operate in the cross-border drug racketing and organized trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It is a matter of common knowledge that huge cache of illicit drugs is smuggled across the border. Some local Pharmaceutical Industries, State police officials and other affluent people have been suspected to be involved, at occasions, in international drug trafficking. The drug addiction has posed a serious threat to the once vibrant state of Punjab. The Courts, therefore, ought to be highly circumspect while granting bail, especially to a repeat offender.”

¶47