Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh Alias Akashdeep Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-36795-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36795-2024
Reserved on: 16.10.2024
Pronounced on: 22.10.2024
Dalbir Singh @ Akashdeep Singh @ Kashi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
100 18.07.2021 Sirhali, District Tarn Taran 21/29-61-85 of the NDPS Act
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail.
2. In para 9 of the status report filed by the State, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR Dated Offences Police Station
No.
1 368 29.09.2022 52-A of the Prisons Act Goindwal Sahib, District
Tarn Taran
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On July 18, 2021, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 270 grams of heroin from the petitioner's possession. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
4. 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.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.23 09:51 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-36795-2024
6. The petitioner seeks bail on parity and pre-trial custody of more than two years and six months.
7. Dealing in 270 grams of heroin is a punishable offense under the NDPS Act in the following terms:
Substance Name Heroin/ Chi a/ Smack/ Brown Sugar Quan ty detained 270 Gram Quan ty type Commercial Drug Quan ty in % to upper limit 108.00% of Intermediate Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 No fica on No S.O.1055(E) dated 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 56 Common Name (Name of Narco c Drug and Psychotropic Substance Heroin (Interna onal non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name Diacetylmorphine Small Quan ty 5 Gram Commercial Quan ty 250 Gram 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 No fica on No S.(xvi)(d) NDPS Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), S.O. 821 (E) dated 11/14/1985 Sr. No. 2(xvi)(d) Common Name (Name of Narco c Drug and Psychotropic Substance ****** (Interna onal non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name 2(xvi)(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts;
Explana on.-- For the purposes of clauses (v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid prepara ons shall be calculated on the basis that a prepara on containing one per cent. of a substance means a prepara on in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the prepara on and so on in propor on for any greater or less percentage:
Jyoti SharmaProvided that the Central Government may, having 2024.10.23 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-36795-2024 regard to the developments in the field of methods of calcula ng percentages in liquid prepara ons prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calcula on.
8. 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.
9. Per the custody certificate dated 15-10-2024, the petitioner is in custody for three years, two months, and twenty-five days in this FIR.
10. The petitioner is entitled to bail based on Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022], decided on 25 Jan 2023. Dheeraj Shukla would be attracted when the three conditions are fulfilled,
(a). The custody of more than two years and six months and the delay was not attributable to the accused.
(b). The trial is at an initial stage.
(c). The petitioner is the first offender.
11. Considering the quantity involved and the pre-trial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not a legal ground for denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.
12. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
13. 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 this Court's official webpage.
14. 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.
15. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following Jyoti Sharma personal identification details:
2024.10.23 09:51 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-36795-2024
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)
16. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
17. 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.
18. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the drug detection squad, their family members, as well as the 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 firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond 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 from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in 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.
19. 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."
20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the Jyoti Sharma case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
2024.10.23 09:51 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-36795-2024
21. 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.
22. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 22.10.2024 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.23 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5