Dismissed

Princepal Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2025CRM-M/722/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a regular bail petition challenging a zero-bail order in an NDPS case involving 300 grams of heroin. The court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding commercial quantity and refused to examine evidence to avoid prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; zero-bail order upheld; custody proceedings continued.

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

¶1

CRM-M-722-2025

¶2

242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-722-2025 Reserved on : 02.04.2025 Pronounced on: 24.04.2025

PRINCEPAL SINGH

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present:Mr.Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
12	23.01.2024	STF, SAS Nagar, STF	21-C/29	of NDPS Act,
		Wing	1985

¶14

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

In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶16

3 The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 23.01.2024 based on secret information, the Police seized 300 grams of heroin from petitioner's possession and 100 grams of heroin each from the co-accused. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further prays for bail by imposing stringent conditions. 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 Section 19, 24, 27A of NDPS Act. He further submits that if the petitioner involves himself in the said offences, he has no objection if the State files application for cancellation of bail in all FIRs under NDPS Act, pending against the petitioner. He further contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.

¶18

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

¶19

It would be appropriate to refer to para 5 of the reply, which reads as follows:

¶20

"xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶21

That it is submitted that the present petition was arrested along with the co-accused on the basis of secret information on 23.01.2024. That the

¶22

Renu Bala 2025.04.24 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-722-2025

¶24

personal search of the

¶25

present petitioner and the other 02 co-accused was conducted in the presence of deponent, in strict compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act. That during the search of the present petitioner namely Princepal Singh 300 gm Heroin was recovered from the waist/pocket of the lower/payjama worn by him. That the recovered Heroin was found present in a transparent polythene bag which had been tied. That the present petitioner was, thus, found to be in conscious possession of the said 300 grams Heroin"

¶26

REASONING:

¶27

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.

¶28

Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates under sub-section (1) (b) of section 37 that no person accused of an offense punishable for offenses involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. Thus, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case, and the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Given the legislative mandate of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court can release a person accused of an offense punishable under the NDPS Act for possessing a commercial quantity of contraband only after recording reasonable satisfaction of its rigors.

¶29

The State’s Counsel argues that a plain reading of Section 37 reveals that the legislature intends to make the law stringent to curb the drug menace. It is further to be noticed that the provisions are couched in negative language, meaning that to grant bail, the Court needs to record a finding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offense. The burden of proof is also on the petitioner to satisfy the Court about his non-involvement in the case. While interpreting the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court must be guided by the objective sought to be achieved by putting these stringent conditions.

¶30

Satisfying the fetters of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertile eggs. The stringent conditions of section 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quantity; however, it creates hurdles by placing a reverse burden on the accused, and once crossed, the rigors no more exist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC. Thus, both the twin conditions need to be satisfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quantity of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail.

¶31

The first condition is to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling them to Renu Bala 2025.04.24 11:52I attest to the accuracy and take a stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court must be satisfied integrity of this document

¶32

CRM-M-722-2025

¶33

that reasonable grounds exist for believing that

¶34

the accused is not guilty of such an offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. If either of these conditions is not met, the ban on granting bail operates. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense, the Court still cannot give a finding on the assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again.

¶35

The petitioner’s arguments did not point toward any material contradictions.

¶36

The submissions made above and the grounds in the bail petition do not shift the burden the legislature places on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not stated anything in the bail petition to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act. The investigation reveals sufficient prima facie evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime; thus, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the petitioner, the State, or the other accused.

¶37

Per the custody certificate, the petitioner's custody is 01 year, 02 months and 06 days, which cannot be considered prolonged.

¶38

In Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, decided on 21 Oct 2022, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2109, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶39

[4]. According to the prosecution, contraband material weighing about 13 kgs. of morphine was found in a motor vehicle which was driven by co-accused named Md. Jakir Hussain. During the course of investigation, it was found that the motor vehicle was recorded in the name of Md. Nizam Uddin who had executed a sale letter and handed over the custody of the vehicle to accused Md. Abdul Hai and that accused Md. Jakir Hussain was the driver employed by accused Md. Abdul Hai and that contraband material in question was to be handed over to accused-Khalil Uddin, an owner of a tea shop.

¶40

[5]. The High Court by its order which is presently under challenge, directed release of both the accused as stated above on bail after they had undergone custody to the tune of about a year. Questioning grant of relief to said accused, the instant appeals have been preferred.

¶41

[7]. What emerges from the record is that large quantity of contraband weighing about 13 kgs of morphine was found in a car which was driven by Md. Jakir Hussain. Whether the role played by said Md. Jakir Hussain could get connected with both the accused is a question.

¶42

[8]. The answer to said question could be the statement recorded of Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded under Section 67 of the Act has also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 has been pronounced upon by this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu . In State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta , the rigour of law lay down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail.

¶43

[9]. However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on

¶44

Renu Bala 2025.04.24 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CRM-M-722-2025

¶46

the strength of the statement of

¶47

Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the view taken by the High Court and direct that both the appellants be taken in custody forthwith.

¶48

[10]. We have been given to understand that the charge-sheet has been filed. In the circumstances, we direct the Trial Court to take up the matter and conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months from the receipt of this order.

¶49

In Narayan Takri v. State of Odisha, decided on 10 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl.) 8198-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶50

The petitioners are in custody since 28th May, 2022 for alleged commission of alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As per the FIR allegation, 125.3 kg. of “Ganja” was recovered from the petitioners.

¶51

[3]. It is not in dispute that the trial has commenced and that three prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.

¶52

[4]. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the third prosecution witness was examined as far back as on 28th January, 2024 and since then, no other prosecution witness has been examined. There is, however, no such averment in the petition.

¶53

[5]. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that every endeavor shall be made on behalf of the prosecution to have all the witnesses examined by the end of this year.

¶54

[6]. The trial court is encouraged to expedite the trial and give its decision as early as possible, in accordance with law.

¶55

[7]. We, however, do not see any reason to interfere the impugned judgment and order at this stage; however, it is clarified that in the event the trial is not completed by the end of this year, the petitioners shall be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the trial court.

¶56

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would also not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶57

The petitioner’s custody of around 01 year and 03 months cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense, which is 10 years.

¶58

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

¶59

Petition dismissed . Interim orders, if any, are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶60

24.04.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶61

Renu Bala 2025.04.24 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Princepal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Princepal Singh v. State of Punjab

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

Tek Singh Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh Alias Gaggi Vs State of Punjab

Rupa Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jasveer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Prabhdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jatin Alias Jatin Sethi Alias Anda Vs State of Punjab