Jaswinder Singh Alias Jasvinder Vs State of Haryana

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶15

Per paragraph 13 of the bail application and paragraph 19 of status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

¶16

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offenses	Police Station
1.	350	24.06.2021	363, 366, 376(2) (n) of IPC	Hanumangarh
			and 6 of POCSO Act
2.	724	08.10.2024	42 of Jail Act	HMJ

¶17

The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 22.05.2023, based on secret information, the Police seized 25 grams of Heroin from possession of the petitioner. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

¶18

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

¶19

Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.18 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶20

1

¶21

CRM-M-3085-2025

¶22

The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶23

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows:

¶24

“17. That as far as specific role of petitioner/accused is concerned, the petitioner/accused was apprehended on the spot along with co-accused Gourav with 265+25= 290 grams of Heroin which falls under commercial quantity.”

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery which has been effected from the petitioner is 25 grams of Heroin which is intermediate whereas the prosecution is showing recovery of 290 grams falling under commercial quantity which is from petitioner as well as co-accused and not from petitioner alone.

¶26

Since separate recovery from petitioner is only 25 grams and other recovery is from co-accused, as such, the rigors 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 a 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 specify an offence and 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 the 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

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 Act¹ .

¶29

The pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 23.05.2023. Per the custody certificate dated 19.02.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 01 year, 08 months and 28 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and

¶30

1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023

¶31

Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.18 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶32

2

¶33

CRM-M-3085-2025

¶34

the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶35

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 the official webpage of this Court.

¶36

CONDITIONS:

¶37

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 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.

¶38

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶39

1.	AADHAR number
2.	Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3.	Mobile number (If available)
4.	E-Mail id (If available)

¶40

This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.

¶41

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 circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶42

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 v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

¶43

Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, members of society, 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.

¶44

Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.18 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶45

3

¶46

CRM-M-3085-2025

¶47

[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 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.

¶48

19. 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 Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail .

¶49

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

¶50

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 authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶51

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶52

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶53

18.03.2025 Jyoti Sharma

¶54

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶55

Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.18 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶56

4

Jaswinder Singh Alias Jasvinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswinder Singh Alias Jasvinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardeep Singh Alias Happy Vs State of Haryana

Harmesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana

Dilawar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gayan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajwinder Singh Alias Labbu Vs State of Punjab