Sulochna Vs State of Haryana

The pe��oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap�oned above has come up before this Court second �me for similar relief under Sec�on 482 of Bhara�ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an�cipatory bail. First pe��on was withdrawn on 07.02.2025 with liberty to file fresh, as such second pe��on is maintainable.

¶11

In paragraph 11 of the bail pe��on and as per paragraph 5 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

¶12

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Year	Offenses	Police Sta�on
1.	688	2016	61-1-14 of Excise Act &	City Thanesar, Dis�.
			188 IPC	Kurukshetra(Haryana)
2.	299	2020	20(B)-61-85 of NDPS Act	Cheeka, Dis�. Kaithal (Haryana)
3.	252	2022	20-61-85 of NDPS Act	City Thanesar, Dis�. Kurukshetra(Haryana)
4.	365	2022	20-61-85 of NDPS Act	Sadar North,Delhi,Delhi

¶13

The facts and allega�ons are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 14.01.2025, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 1 kg 146 grams of ganja from the pe��oner’s house. The Inves�gator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023.

¶14

At the �me of recovery, no one was present in the house of the pe��oner. On enquiry, the people and women living nearby told that this house belongs to the pe��oner. The pe��oner was earlier caught in Delhi in a case of recovery of Ganja, who

¶15

JYOTI 2025.03.10 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶16

1

¶17

CRM-M-9248-2025

¶18

has gone to Delhi Court for her hearing in connec�on with the said case. Apprehending arrest, she filed for an�cipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which denied her bail. Feeling aggrieved, he has invoked the concurrent jurisdic�on of this Court under S. 482 BNSS, 2023.

¶19

The pe��oner’s counsel submits that the police recovered 1 kg 146 grams of ganja from a house, which is alleged to be of the pe��oner. He submits that the fact cannot be ignored that the main gate of the house was found open and the pe��oner was not found present at the spot and on calling at the gate, no person came outside and during the search also, no person was found inside. He further submits that the pe��oner was not apprehended at the spot and she has been falsely implicated in the said case. He further submits that there is no evidence that pe��oner is owner of the house. In the reply, the State made averments that house owned by the father-in-law of the pe��oner, who had died, and her husband also died, hence, she is now in possession of the said house. However, no evidence regarding this has been produced, so such an averment cannot be sustained. He further submits that the address men�oned in the FIR is totally different from the address men�oned in the iden�ty proof of the pe��oner. Hence, the averment pertaining to the house being possessed by the pe��oner cannot be sustained.

¶20

The pe��oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi�ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera�on would cause an irreversible injus�ce to the pe��oner and her family.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

“7. xxxxx

¶24

A. That the contraband was recovered from the house of the present pe��oner and custodial interroga�on is necessary to go to the root of the Main Drug peddler.

¶25

B. That the Contraband is recovered from the house in which the present pe��oner is residing since a long �me and the house belongs to her Father in Law, who had died and her husband has also died. Therea�er she has the possession of the above said house from whom the contraband was recovered.

¶26

C. Yes, the Police will arrest the pe��oner in the above noted case and police needs the custody of the pe��oner as the police needs informa�on

¶27

JYOTI 2025.03.10 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶28

2

¶29

CRM-M-9248-2025

¶30

regarding from where the contraband was purchased and to whom the contraband will supplied.

¶31

D. That the contraband recovered from the house of present pe��oner is GANJA having Weight 1KG & 146 Grams along with the wax polythene.”

¶32

REASONING:

¶33

The evidence collected so far against the pe��oner is not enough to deny her bail. Police recovered the contraband from a house which is alleged to be in possession of pe��oner and at the �me of recovery, the door of the house was open and no one was present in the house, as such, these facts can only be proved into evidence only.

¶34

Given the quan�ty involved, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.

¶35

Sec�on 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quan�ty as greater than the quan�ty specified in the schedule. Sec�on 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quan�ty as a quan�ty less than the quan�ty specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quan�ty falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quan�ty. All sec�ons in the NDPS Act specify an offence and men�on the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quan�ty of the substance. The commercial quan�ty 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 quan�ty is less than commercial, the restric�ons of Sec�on 37 of the NDPS Act will not a�ract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes.

¶36

Pre-trial incarcera�on should not be a replica of post-convic�on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu�on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an�cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus�fy custodial interroga�on or pretrial incarcera�on.

¶37

Given the penal provisions invoked, the legal admissibility of evidence collected against the pe��on, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allega�ons, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus�fiability for custodial interroga�on or pre-trial incarcera�on.

¶38

Given the above, without commen�ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men�oned above, the pe��oner

¶39

JYOTI 2025.03.10 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶40

3

¶41

CRM-M-9248-2025

¶42

makes a case for an�cipatory bail.

¶43

Given above, provided the pe��oner is not required in any other case, the pe��oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap�oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa�sfac�on of the Arres�ng Officer, and if the ma�er is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep�ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa�sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶44

While furnishing a personal bond, the pe��oner shall men�on the following personal iden�fica�on details:

¶45

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

¶46

The bail order is subject to the pe��oner’s complying with the following terms.

¶47

The pe��oner is directed to join the inves�ga�on within seven days of uploading this order on the ofcial webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as andfi when called by the Inves�gator. The pe��oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec�on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec�on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe��oner shall join the inves�ga�on as and when called by the Inves�ga�ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves�ga�on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu�on will be open to seeking cancella�on of the bail. During the inves�ga�on, the pe��oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶48

The pe��oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi�ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe��oner 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.

¶49

Given the background of allega�ons against the pe��oner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detec�on staff and incapacita�ng the accused would be one of the primary op�ons un�l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acqui�al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession

¶50

JYOTI 2025.03.10 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶51

4

¶52

CRM-M-9248-2025

¶53

of firearms. [This restric�on 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 sanc�on]. Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe��oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni�on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fi�een days of release from prison and inform the Inves�gator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe��oner shall be en�tled to renew and reclaim them in case of acqui�al in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restric�ng firearms would ins�ll confidence in the vic�m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea�ng the offense.

¶54

In case the Inves�gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta�on arraigns another sec�on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec�on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec�ons men�oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec�on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec�ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec�ons men�oned above; then, in that case, the Inves�gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe��oner no�ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶55

In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the pe��oner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the pe��oner is bound to face the necessary consequences.”

¶56

23. This bail is condi�onal, and the founda�onal condi�on is that if the pe��oner indulges in any non-bailable ofense, the State may ff ile an applica�on for cancella�on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail .

¶57

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

¶58

A cer�fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a�est it to be a true copy. If the a�es�ng officer wants to verify its authen�city, such an officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a�es�ng bonds.

¶59

JYOTI

¶60

2025.03.10 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶61

5

¶62

CRM-M-9248-2025

¶63