Narsi Ram v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta.on Sec.ons

23.05.2022 Tappa Mandi, District Barnala, Punjab 15/29/25 of NDPS Act No.61 of 1985

¶1The pe

oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above has come up before this Court under Sec on 482 of Bhara ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an cipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 24 of the bail pe

on and as per paragraph 10 F of the status report dated 11.03.2025, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta.on

1.

28.06.2023 15(c), 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act Ajad Nagar, District Hisar

¶22022 8/15 and 8/25 of NDPS Act Khedapa

¶32018 8/15, 8/29 of NDPS Act Bap, Dis?. Jodhpur

¶3The facts and allega ons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: "2. That the brief facts of the case are, that on 23.05.2022 Inspector Baljit Singh, In charge CIA, Barnala, along with other police officials, was present near Grain Market, Ghunas, in connec%on with patrolling and checking of suspected persons. The police party received secret informa%on to the effect that Tarlok Singh son of Piara Singh, Harmeet Singh son of Surjit Singh and Jagsir Singh alias Jaggi son of Buta Singh have taken a factory on rent for manufacturing interlock bricks, which is situated adjoining the pipe factory of Piara Lal resident of Dhilwan. Whereas, the said persons are doing illegal ac%vi%es there and also doing the business of selling the poppy husk on a large scale by bringing the same from outer State and stored the same in the said factory. The secret informer also disclosed that they also supplied the same by using their Swi1 car bearing registra%on no. PB-73A-1316 of white color. As the informa%on was credible, a formal FIR was registered ini%ally against Tarlok Singh son of Piara Singh, Harmeet Singh son of Surjeet Singh and Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi son of Buta Singh all residents of Rureke village, District Barnal.

¶3That therea1er, a raid was conducted at the above said interlock %le factory and in the said factory, on the right side near the main gate, a Swi1 Car bearing registra%on no. PB-73A-1316 of white color was parked and two people were seen loading a plas%c sack in the trunk of the said car. On seeing the police party, they tried to fled away; however, police officials nabbed them. On being enquired, one person out of the above said two persons disclosed his name and par%culars as Tarlok Singh son of Piara Singh and the other person disclosed his name as Harmeet Singh son of Surjit Singh. That following the prescribed procedure search of car bearing registra%on no. PB-73A-1316 was conducted, which led to recovery of three plas%c bags from the trunk of the car. Further, on the search of go-down, 47 plas%c bags were also recovered. Therea1er, Inves%ga%ng Officer had conducted the search of all the said 50 bags and found that there was poppy husk and pods of poppy plant in all the said bags. On weighing, the weight of each bag was found to be 20 kilograms. Thus, total 1000 kg poppy husk and pods of poppy plant were recovered from the spot. That the accused were arrested and recovered contraband was converted into parcels as per the prescribed procedure and was sent to forensic laboratory for tes%ng.

¶4That during interroga%on, on 26.05.2022, accused Tarlok Singh got recovered another 120 kg of poppy husk and pods of poppy plant, in pursuance of his disclosure statement.

¶5That during further inves%ga%on, on the basis of interroga%on of the above said accused as well as on the basis of statement of one Mandeep Singh son of Gamdur Singh, recorded under sec%on 161 Cr.PC, accused Baltej Singh son of Piara Singh and Hakam Singh son of Surjit Singh, were nominated as accused in the present case under Sec%on 29 of NDPS Act. On 28.05.2022, on the basis of interroga%on of accused Tarlok Singh and Harmeet Singh as well as on the basis of statement of Ram Singh recorded under Sec%on 161 Cr.PC, accused Nazar Singh @ Naja was also nominated as an accused in the present case. During further inves%ga%on, on 30.05.2022 accused Paramjit Singh was nominated as an accused and ini%ally nominated accused Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi was also arrested in the present case. On 03.06.2022, during further inves%ga%on, on the basis of statement of one Swaranjit Singh ex sarpanch son of Mohan Singh recorded under sec%on 161 Cr.PC, accused Balwinder Singh @ Ravi has also been nominated as an accused in the present case. That the accused Paramjit singh was arrested on 10.08.2022 and during interroga%on, he got recovered 3 kg of poppy pods.

¶6That the accused Balwinder Singh @ Ravi was arrested in the present case on 18.09.2022 and further during inves%ga%on, the ownership of vehicle bearing registra%on no. PB-73A-1316 was verified as the said vehicle was registered in the name of Tarlok Singh and then offence under Sec%on 25 of NDPS Act was deleted. On conclusion of the inves%ga%on qua accused Tarlok Singh, Harmeet Singh, Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi, Paramjit Singh and Balwinder Singh, challan against them was presented was on

16.11.2022.

¶7That during further inves%ga%on, on 23.12.2022, on the basis of statement of one Daljit Kumar son of Ravinder Nath recorded under sec%on 161 Cr.PC, accused Atul Kumar @ Raju was nominated as an accused in the present case and he was arrested in the present case on

27.12.2022. During further inves%ga%on, on 30.12.2022, on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Atul Kumar and statement of one Jashanpreet Singh son of Gurchet Singh, recorded under sec%on 161 Cr.PC, present pe%%oner Narsi Ram has been nominated, as an accused the present case."

¶4During the custodial interroga!on, the co-accused named the pe!!oner, and based on this confession, the inves!gator arraigned him as an accused. The pe!!oner approached the Sessions Court for an!cipatory bail, which was surprisingly denied.

¶5The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family.

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. order/judgment. 3

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the status report dated 11.03.2025, which read as follows: "C. The Evidence against the Pe##oner: That in the present case, during police ques%oning, co-accused Atul Kumar disclosed that he was friend of Hakam Singh resident of Dhilwan, as such he became friend of Hakam Singh's rela%ve i.e. Tarlok Singh (main accused/convict). That further the co-accused Atul disclosed that he used to lend money to Tarlok Singh for purchasing poppy husk, who use to return the amount along with interest. That Tarlok Singh also used to give him poppy husk for further retail at cheap price or some%mes use to supply the same through Hakam Singh. That Tarlok Singh used to tell him that the en%re consignments of poppy husk were bought by him from the present pe%%oner i.e. Narsi Ram s/o Narang Ram resident of Newa, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. That further on the same day one independent person, Jashanpreet Singh son of Gurchet Singh resident of Mehta got recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C to the effect inter alia that he had acquaintance with accused Atul Kumar @ Raju who used to run the furniture shop and two to three months ago, while he was at a tavern, he overheard the conversa%on of the accused Atul Kumar with another person, in which he was disclosing that earlier he used to purchase poppy husk from Tarlok Singh and retail the same, but since they all have been apprehended, as such now he is not able to retail poppy husk. That further, he overheard Atul Kumar saying that he will arrange the contact number of Narsi Ram from Tarlok Singh to purchase poppy husk, as Tarlok Singh earlier also used to purchase the en%re consignments of poppy husk from Narsi Ram son Narang Ram r/o Neva District Jodhpur. D. The role of the Pe##oner: That as per the disclosures made by co-accused Atul Kumar and statement of one independent witness namely Jashanpreet Singh s/o Gurchet Singh r/o Mehta it is established that the present pe%%oner is the king pin of the said supply drug racket of poppy husk and poppy buds. That the present pe%%oner plays a pivotal role in supply and retail of poppy husk in the state of Punjab. It is he who used to supply first hand to accused/convict Tarlok Singh and therea1er Tarlok Singh used to retail the same at higher prices." REASONING:

¶8The name of the pe!!oner has been surfaced on the basis of disclosure order/judgment. 4 statement of co-accused Atul Kumar and the said co-accused has already been acqui?ed by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-8), as such, there is no reason to deny him bail.

¶9The quan ty allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The pe

oner must sa sfy the twin condi ons put in place by the Legislature under Sec on 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶10For now, the pe

oner has prima facie sa sfied the first condi on of sec on 37 of the NDPS Act to make a case for bail. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this court will put very stringent condi ons in this order to ensure that the pe

oner does not repeat the offense.

¶11In Abida v. State of Haryana, 2022:PHHC:058722, [Para 10], CRM-M-5077-2022, decided on 13-05-2022, this court observed as follows: [10]. Thus, both the twin condi ons need to be sa sfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quan ty of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first condi on is to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a stand on the bail applica on. The second s pula on is that the Court must be sa sfied 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 condi ons is not met, the ban on gran ng bail operates. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substan al probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the condi ons, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, the Court s ll 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 quan ty would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts. [30]. From the summary of the law rela ng to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, while gran ng bail involving commercial quan

es, the following fundamental principles emerge:

(a). In case of inconsistency, S. 37 of the NDPS Act prevails over S. 439 CrPC. [Narco cs Control Bureau v Kishan Lal, 1991

(1) SCC 705, Para 6].

(b). The limita ons on gran ng of bail come in only when the ques on of gran ng bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. AhmadalievaNodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].

(c). The provisions of Sec on 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 condi ons are to be mandatorily sa sfied in addi on 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 gran ng opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin condi ons which really have relevance are the Court's sa sfac on 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 sa sfac on contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be more than prima facie grounds, considering substan al probable causes for believing and jus fying 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 jus fy sa sfac on 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].

(h). Twin condi ons of S. 37 are cumula ve and not alterna ve. [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 me culously to arrive at a posi ve finding as to whether or not the accused has commi?ed 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. Ra?an Mallik @ Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624, Para 14].

(j). If the statements of the prosecu on witnesses are believed, then they would not result in a convic on. [Babua v. State of Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566, Para 3].

(k). Merely recording the submissions of the par es does not amount to an indica on of a judicial mind or a judicious applica on of mind. [UOI v. Prateek Shukla, 2021:INSC:165 [Para 11], (2021) 5 SCC 430, Para 12].

(l). Sec on 37 departs from the long-established principle of presump on of innocence in favour of an accused person un l proved otherwise. [Union of India v. Sanjeev v. Deshpande,

(2014) 13 SCC 1, Para 5].

(m). While considering the applica on for bail concerning Sec on 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 Sec on 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 quan ta ve analysis of the samples from the laboratory, the prosecu on cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the accused possessed a commercial quan ty 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 quan ty of psychotropic substances, such accused is not en tled to bail given Sec on 37 of the Act as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimu?a, 2022:INSC:26 [Para 11], 2022 SCC OnLine SC 47, Para 12].

(p). Bail must be subject to stringent condi ons. [Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, 2020:INSC:101 [Para 12], 2020 SCC Online SC 84, Para 12]. [31]. Sa sfying the fe?ers of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infer le eggs. The stringent condi ons of sec on 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quan ty; 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 pe

ons under general penal statutes like IPC.

¶12The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu on or even to frame the charges; however, for the purpose of denying bail, the evidence is insufficient.

¶13Given 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 at this stage. CONDITIONS:

¶14Given 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 makes a case for an cipatory bail.

¶15The inves ga on indicates that the pe

oner is not the main accused, so the pe

oner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for gran ng bail to the other co-

¶16Given 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.

¶17While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the a?es!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶18This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶19The pe%%oner is directed to join the inves%ga%on 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 Inves%gator. The pe!!oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec!on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 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.

¶20The 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.

¶21Given the background of allega!ons against the pe!!oner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detec!on squad 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 of firearms. [This restric!on is being imposed based on the preponderance of the order/judgment. 8 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 fiTeen days from today 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 it is 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.

¶22The condi ons men oned 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 Pe

on (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 condi ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi ons that would result in the depriva on of rights and liber es must be eschewed."

¶23In 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.

¶24In 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."

¶25This bail is condional, and the foundaonal condion is that if the peoner

indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an applicaon for cancellaon of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail.

¶26Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶27A 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.

¶28Pe..on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

12.05.2025 Jyo -II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Pronounced on: 12.05.2025 Narsi Ram ...Pe oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for the pe oner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. ****