Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh Alias Nikka vs State Of Haryana on 29 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:159613
1
CRM-M-51474-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51474-2024
Reserved on: 19.11.2024
Pronounced on: 29.11.2024
Mandeep Singh alias Nikka ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0195 21.07.2024 City Ratia, District 21(b), 27A, 29 of NDPS Act Fatehabad
1. 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.
2. As per paragraph 12 of the bail petition and para 9 of the reply, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station 1 25 20.01.2020 408, 102-B IPC Hisar Sadar, District Hisar 2 191 29.11.2021 458, 395, 412, 120- Sardulgarh (Punjab) B, 201 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act 3 94 14.10.2021 61-1-14 of Excise Jhanir (Punjab) Act
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On July 21, 2024, based on secret information, the Police seized 20 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.
11 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-12-2024 08:37:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:159613 2 CRM-M-51474-2024
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"10. That the role and evidence against the present petitioner- accused Mandeep @ Nikka is as under: -
That there are serious allegations against the present petitioner- accused Mandeep @ Nikka as the present petitioner and co-accused Amritpal alias Gurlal alias Amrit were apprehended by the police and from the conscious possession of petitioner, 20 Grams of Heroin was recovered from the right side pocket of his kurta pajama of petitioner, which they had purchased said recovered contraband from co-accused Amrik Singh for sum of Rs.60,000/-."
7. Dealing in 20 grams of heroin is a punishable offense under the NDPS Act in the following terms:
Substance Name Heroin/ Chitta/ Smack/ Brown Sugar Quantity detained 20 Gram Quantity type Intermediate Drug Quantity in % to upper limit
8.00% of 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 5 Gram Commercial Quantity 250 Gram 0 Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification 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 Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance ****** (International non-proprietary name (INN) Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name 2(xvi)(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also 2 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-12-2024 08:37:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:159613 3 CRM-M-51474-2024 known as dia-morphine or heroin and its salts;
Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses (v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage:
Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.
8. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.
9. 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 a 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 specify an offence and 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 the 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.
10. 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.
11. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1.1
Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 3
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-12-2024 08:37:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:159613 4 CRM-M-51474-2024
12. The pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, per paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2024 and accordingly his custody in this FIR is 04 months approximately. 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.
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 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)
16. 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.
17. 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 v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.
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 4 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-12-2024 08:37:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:159613 5 CRM-M-51474-2024 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, 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 offence.
19. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner repeats the offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
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 29.11.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 5 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-12-2024 08:37:12 :::