Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deep Singh Alias Babby vs State Of Haryana on 31 October, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-41904-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41904-2025
Reserved on: 01.10.2025
Pronounced on: 31.10.2025
Deep Singh alias Babby ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Birender Bikram Attrey, Addl. AG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
34 06.02.2025 City Mandi Dabwali, 15-C/61/85 of NDPS
Distt. Dabwali Act
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Per paragraph 4 of the bail petition/reply, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station 1 139 21.03.2022 42 of Prisons Act Civil Line Sirsa 2 409 05.12.2020 15B/61/85 of NDPS Act Sadar Dabwali 3 104 05.04.2020 15B/61/85 of NDPS Act Sadar Dabwali 4 103 05.04.2020 188/323/307/34 IPC and 25 Sadar Dabwali of Arms Act 5 152 21.04.2020 15(c)/61/85 of NDPS Act City Dabwali
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 06-02- 2025, based on secret information, the Police seized 190.200 kgs of poppy husk from the house of Jaswinder Singh where Gurcharan Singh and Jaswinder Singh @ Bikar Singh s/o Kartar Singh were present. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985 and BNSS 2023. During the investigation, accused Gurcharan Singh and Jaswinder Singh @ Bikar disclosed that the contraband was given to them by Iqbal Singh @ Titru two days back, who was also named in the 1 1 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:45 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 2 secret information.
4. During the custodial interrogation, the co-accused Iqbal @ Titru disclosed the petitioner and co-accused Pargat Singh @ Kaka as the seller of the contraband, and based on this confession, the investigator arraigned him as an accused. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was surprisingly denied.
5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
6. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.
7. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
REASONING:
8. As per paragraph 3 of the reply dated 15-09-2025, the contraband is 190.200 kg of poppy husk.
9. Dealing in 190.200 kg of poppy husk in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:
Substance Name Poppy straw Quantity detained 190.2 Kg Punishable U/s S.15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of 380.40% Intermediate
Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Expert Committee Report dated Notification No. & date 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) 2 2 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 3 Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 110 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Poppy straw Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name ****** Small Quantity < 1000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 1 Kg) Commercial Quantity > 50000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 50 Kg) Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 S.15 & S.2(xviii) NDPS Notification No. & dated 11/14/1985 Act, S.O.821(E) Sr. No. S.2(xviii) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic ****** Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** S.2(xviii) "poppy straw" means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom; S. 2(viiib)] "illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means--
(i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant;
Chemical Name (ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;
(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances;
S.2 (xvii) "opium poppy" means--
(a) the plant of the species Papaver 3 3 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 4 somniferum L; and
(b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act;
S2. (xviii) "poppy straw" means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom;
10. 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.
11. It would be appropriate to refer to paragraph 5, 10, 11, and 13 of the reply dated 15- 09-2025, which read as follows:
"5. That during the investigation on 24.05.2025, accused Igbal Singh @ Titru was joined the investigation in the case and was arrested. During investigation accused Iqbal Singh @ Titru suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the commission of crime alongwith co-accused and petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby. That during investigation on 25.05.2025, accused Iqbal Singh @ Titru suffered his re-disclosure statement and got demarcated the place where on 1/2.02.2025, in the night, he had purchased 10 plastic bags i.e. 195 Kg of poppy husk from Pargat Singh son of Raj Singh, resident of Raguana and petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby son of Sukhmander Singh @ Mander Singh, resident of Paniwala Morika, now resident of Mangeana, in sum of Rs.5,85,000/- in his own tractor bearing No.HR-25G-5965 make Sawraj 855, colour red-white along with trolly and 150 got recovered tractor bearing No. HR-25G-5965, make Sawraj 855, colour red-white along with trolly used in commission of crime, which was taken in possession. Copy of disclosure and re-disclosure statement of accused Iqbal Singh @ Titru are annexed here with as Annexure R-4 and R-5 respective.
x x x x
10. That compliance of order dated on 26.08.2025, passed by this Hon'ble High Court, petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby was joined the Investigation on 07.09.2025 and the questions was put to him and did not give any satisfactory petitioner/accused neither cooperated nor disclosed any 4 4 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 5 thing about the crime nor disclosed the name of person/source from whom he had purchased recovered contraband i.e. 195 Kg Poppy Husk, nor demarcate the places from where he had purchased and where he had sell recovered contraband to his co-accused persons Gurcharan Singh, Jaswinder Singh @ Bikar Singh and nor recovered any money earned from selling recovered contraband. The petitioner/accused Deep Singh Babby did not cooperated in investigation in any manner. Thereafter, compliance of orders of this Hon'ble High Court the Deep Singh @ Babby was released on interim bail.
11. That the petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby is specifically named in disclosure statements of co-accused Iqbal Singh @ Titru/Annexure R-4 and R-5.The petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby is the supplier of contraband 10 plastic bags i.e. 195 Kg. Poppy husk in this case. During investigation, petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babbyhas been found involved in the commission of crime involving commercial quantity of contraband10 plastic bags i.e. 195 Kg. Poppy husk. It is pertinent to mention here that during investigation on 25.05.2025, accused Iqbal Singh @ Titru suffered his re-disclosure statement and got demarcated the place where on 1/2.02.2025, in the night, he had purchased 10 plastic bags i.e. 195 Kg of poppy husk from Pargat Singh son of Raj Singh, resident of Raguana and petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby son of Sukhmander Singh @Mander Singh, resident of Paniwala Morika, now resident of Mangeana, in sum of Rs.5,85,000/- at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per kg.
x x x x
13. That the petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby has filed the present petition in this Hon'ble High Court for grant of anticipatory bail. In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby is specifically named in disclosure statements of co-accused Iqbal Singh @ Titru/Annexure R-4 and R-5. The petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby is the supplier of contraband 10 plastic bags i.e. 195 Kg. Poppy husk in this case. During investigation, petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby neither cooperated nor disclosed anything about the crime nor disclosed the name of person/source from whom he had purchased recovered contraband i.e. 195 Kg Poppy Husk, nor demarcate the places from where he had purchased and where he had sell recovered contraband to his co-accused persons Gurcharan Singh, Jaswinder Singh @ Bikar Singh and nor recovered any money earned from selling recovered contraband. The petitioner/accused Deep Singh @ Babby did not cooperated in investigation in any manner. The petitioner/accused is required by the police for custodial 5 5 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 6 interrogation/investigation as the source of recovered contraband is to be traced out from the petitioner/accused as only he know about the source of recovered contraband. It is also respectfully submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the present petition/anticipatory bail of the petitioner/accused be dismissed. There is apprehension that in the event of anticipatory bail the petitioner/accused may not cooperate in the investigation of the case or may not disclose regarding source of recovered contraband, so order dated 26.08.2025, passed by this Hon'ble High Court petitioner/accused does not compliance. The Investigation of the case is in progress. That the petitioner/accused is Involved in 6 another similar NDPS Act/IPC cases. The petitioner/accused, being involved in commercial quantity of contraband, does not deserve for the concession of anticipatory bail. Present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed."
12. Thus, the evidence collected so far consists of disclosure statements. Such statements can be proven subject to the mandatory restrictions imposed in S. 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ S. 23 of BSA, 2023.
13. In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the majority view of a three-member bench holds as follows:
We answer the reference by stating:
(i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
(ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
14. The status report filed by the police reveals that the investigator arraigned the petitioner as an accused based on the disclosure statement of the main accused, from whose possession the investigator had recovered the contraband. No other evidence is collected at this stage to connect the petitioner with the main accused. Thus, there is no justification to deny bail. Consequently, the petitioner has satisfied the first rider of section 37 of the NDPS Act. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this court will put very stringent conditions in this order to ensure that the petitioner does not repeat the offense.
15. In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077-2022, 6 6 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 7 decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows:
[10]. 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. The first condition is to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a stand on the bail application. The second stipulation is that the Court must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If either of these two 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 that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, the Court still cannot give a finding on assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Thus, the grant of bail or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts.
[30]. From the summary of the law relating to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, while granting bail involving commercial quantities, the following fundamental principles emerge:
(a). In case of inconsistency, S. 37 of the NDPS Act prevails over S. 439 CrPC. [Narcotics Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991 (1) SCC 705, Para 6].
(b). The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. AhmadalievaNodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(c). The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act provide the legal norms which have to be applied in determining whether a case for grant of bail has been made out. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12].
(d). In case the Court proposes to grant bail, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the standard requirements under the provisions of the CrPC or any other enactment. [Union of India v. Niyazuddin SK &Anr, 2017:INSC:686 [Para 7], (2018) 13 SCC 738, Para 7].
(e). Apart from granting opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance are the Court's satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
[N.R. Mon v. Md. Nasimuddin, (2008) 6 SCC 721, Para 9].
(f). The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be more than prima facie grounds, considering substantial probable causes for believing and justifying that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(g). The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [State of Kerala v. Rajesh, 2020:INSC:88 [Para 21], AIR 2020 SC 721, Para 21].
77 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 8
(h). Twin conditions of S. 37 are cumulative and not alternative. [Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].
(i). At the bail stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. [Union of India v. Rattan Mallik @ Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624, Para 14].
(j). If the statements of the prosecution witnesses are believed, then they would not result in a conviction. [Babua v. State of Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566, Para 3].
(k). Merely recording the submissions of the parties does not amount to an indication of a judicial mind or a judicious application of mind. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12].
(l). Section 37 departs from the long-established principle of presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person until proved otherwise. [Union of India v. Sanjeev v. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1, Para 5].
(m). While considering the application for bail concerning Section 37, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, Para 11].
(n). The confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. [Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020:INSC:620, (2021) 4 SCC 1]
(o). In the absence of clarity on the quantitative analysis of the samples from the laboratory, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the accused possessed a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India 2021:INSC:877 [Para 11], 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1235, Para 10].
(p). When there is evidence of conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, such accused is not entitled to bail given Section 37 of the Act as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, 2022:INSC:26 [Para 11], 2022 SCC OnLine SC 47, Para 12].
(p). Bail must be subject to stringent conditions. [Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, 2020:INSC:101 [Para 12], 2020 SCC Online SC 84, Para 12].
[31]. 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 subsist, and the factors for bail become similar to the bail petitions under general penal statutes like IPC.
88 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 9
16. The petitioner claims to have joined the investigation.
17. In Roji alias Dimpi v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl.) 8976-2023, decided on 13-09- 2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioner is accused of committing the offence punishable under Sections 21(a) and 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act; based on the statement of the co-accused from whom a commercial quantity (274 grams) of contraband was seized. Aside from the statement of that co-accused - who implicated the petitioner by alleging that he had sold 126 grams to her, in fact there is no other material on the record. The prosecution, prima facie seems to rely entirely upon the statement of the co- accused and the recovery of the 274 grams from him.
It is a matter of record that the petitioner had joined the investigations and has cooperated in that regard.
Having regard to all these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail and is accordingly directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to such terms as the Trial Court may impose.
18. The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or even to frame the charges; however, for the purpose of denying bail, the evidence is insufficient.
19. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.1Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.2 Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.3
20. Given the penal provisions invoked, the legal admissibility of evidence collected against the petitioner, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.
CONDITIONS:
21. Given the above, without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner 1 Supreme Court of India in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. state of Rajasthan, [E-SCR] ; [2008] 17 SCR 369, Para 16, decided on 12.12.2008.
2Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2J [E-SCR], Paragraph 127, decided on 02.12.2010.
3Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh & ors v. State of UP, [E-SCR] P. 777, decided on 31.01.1978.
99 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 10 makes a case for anticipatory bail.
22. 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 Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
23. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
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)
24. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
25. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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 required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
26. 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.
27. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, 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. [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 10 10 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 11 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 from today 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 it is otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
28. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."
29. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that 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.
30. 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 petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences."
31. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.
32. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's 11 11 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 ::: CRM-M-41904-2025 12 merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
33. It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above.
34. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Appellant-Accused 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.
35. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 31.10.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 12 12 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 13-11-2025 23:54:46 :::