Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdev Singh @ Makhan And Another vs State Of Punjab on 1 March, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=
CRM-M-48156-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48156-2022
Reserved on: 21.02.2023
Pronounced on: 01-03-2023
Jagdev Singh @ Makhan and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 199 08.09.2022 Bhawanigarh, Distt. 21, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act, Sangrur 1985
1. The petitioners, apprehending arrest for violating the above-mentioned provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR captioned above, on the allegations that the accused Gurpreet, Jaspal, and Jagdev deal in drugs and had sold 85 grams of heroin to Jagjit, from whom the police recovered the substance and during his interrogation named the above petitioners, have come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declare that they have no criminal antecedents.
3. Petitioners' counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. He argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and family.
4. State's counsel opposes the bail.
REASONING:
5. NDPS Act makes heroin an offence in the following manner:
Substance Name Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack Quantity detained (in Grams) 85 Quantity type Intermediate 1 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:27:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-48156-2022 2 Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of 34.00% Intermediate
Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No S.O.1055(E) dated 10/19/2001 Sr. No. 56 Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Heroin (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name Diacetylmorphine Small Quantity (in gm.) 5 Commercial Quantity (in gm.) 250
6. 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 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, which specify an offence, also 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 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.The quantity allegedly involved in this case is not commercial. Given this, the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.
7. In Sami Ullaha v Superintendent Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that in intermediate quantity, the rigors of the provisions of Section 37 may not be justified.
8. The petitioners are the first offenders, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 4 and 5 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.
9. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a 2 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-48156-2022 3 three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioners who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioners to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
10. 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, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation.
11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and 3 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-48156-2022 4 irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
12. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed, [53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the "Court" and the "Arresting Officer" should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.
13. Given above, provided the petitioners are not required in any other case, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms:
(a). Petitioners to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-) each; AND
(b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-) each, to the satisfaction of the concerned investigator/SHO. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the accused fail to appear in court, then such surety can produce such accused before the court.
OR
(b) Petitioners to hand over to the concerned investigator/SHO a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-) each, with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in favour of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district. The fixed deposit may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or any of the well- established and stable private sector banks. The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the petitioners' account.
(c). In case of the launching of the prosecution, the said fixed deposit be forwarded to the concerned court along with the police report/challan under 173 CrPC.
(d). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit until the case's closure, or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.
(e). It shall be the discretion of the petitioners to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the petitioners to apply to the Investigator or the concerned court to substitute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.
(f). On the reverse page of personal bond, the petitioners shall mention her/his permanent address along with the phone number, preferably that numbers which is linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above particulars, the petitioners shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification intimate about the change to the concerned police station and the concerned court.
(g). The petitioners is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, 4 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-48156-2022 5 terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also of this bail order.
14. The petitioners are directed to join the investigation within seven days and also as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioners shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioners 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, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioners shall not be called before 8 AM, let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
15. The petitioners shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.
16. Within fifteen days from today, the petitioners shall procure a smartphone and inform its IMEI number and other details to the SHO/I.O. of the Police station mentioned before. The petitioners shall always keep the phone location/GPS on the "ON" mode. Whenever the Investigating officer asks to share the location, the petitioners shall immediately do so. The petitioners shall neither clear the location history, WhatsApp chats, calls nor format the phone without permission of the concerned SHO/I.O. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of case, whatever is earlier.
17. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from today and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioners shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules.
18. The bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions.
19. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to ensure the safety of the society. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, 5 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-48156-2022 6 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 Advocate for the petitioners and the Officer in whose presence the petitioners put signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioners understand.
21. If the petitioners find bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reduction. Further, if the petitioners find bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioners may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.
22. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law.
23. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes maximum sentence which 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 petitioners notice of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
24. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
25. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
26. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
66 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:27:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-48156-2022 7 Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
March 01, 2023
sonia arora
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=
7
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:27:01 :::