Abhyansh Tuli v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 31 25.09.2014 Fatehgarh Panjtoor, 21 of NDPS Act and 25, 27 of Arms District Moga Act (Secton 29 of NDPS Act added later on vide GD No.17 dated

27.09.2024.)

¶1The pettoner apprehending arrest in the FIR captoned above has come up before this Court under Secton 482 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking antcipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 15 of the bail petton, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the reply filed by the State. On

25.09.2024, the police party along with equipment were patrolling and then they got a secret informaton that Lovejeet Singh @ Lovely, Manpreet Singh @ Mani and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi were selling heroin and even on that day they are present in their vehicle and they have heroin. A@er that informaton, the Investgator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS, 2023 and were able to nab the above named persons and from their possession, the police recovered 500 grams of heroin and ammuniton. During further investgaton, Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Jagpal Singh, Prabhdeep Singh @ Prabh and Abhyansh Tuli (pettoner) were nominated as an accused.

¶4Counsel for the pettoner seeks bail on the ground that there is no evidence order/judgment. 1 against him. The pettoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoner and his family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the reply, which read as follows: "Role of the pettoner: Pettoner has been nominated as accused u/s 29 of NDPS Act on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani, who was apprehended red handed by the police and 500 grams heroin was recovered from possession of Manpreet Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Lovejeet Singh.

¶3Evidence against the pettoner: Pettoner has been nominated as accused u/s 29 of NDPS Act on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani. It is also submi/ed here that as per CDR report of mobile no.77174-xxxx of pettoner he is in contnuous in touch with mobile no.78889-xxxx which belongs to accused Manpreet Singh and during the period of 10.09.2024 to 10.10.2024 total 69 calls have been exchanged between them. So, there is sufficient evidence to connect the pettoner with the crime. CDR report is a/ached herewith as Annexure R-2." REASONING:

¶7A perusal of the reply shows that there is call details between the pettoner and co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Mani.

¶8On this, the pettoner's counsel submits that they are classmates and calls between them are not unusual and calls between college students are insignificant. These are exchange of 69 calls during a month, more partcularly before the recovery of heroin.

¶9The quantty allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act and the pettoner must satsfy the twin conditons put in place by the Legislature under Secton 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶10Given the above, the pettoner has, prima facie, failed to satsfy the conditons of secton 37 of the NDPS Act to make a case for bail.

¶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 conditons need to be satsfied before a person accused of possessing a commercial quantty of drugs or psychotropic substance is to be released on bail. The first conditon is JYOTI to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, enabling to take a order/judgment. 2 stand on the bail applicaton. The second stpulaton is that the Court must be satsfied 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 conditons is not met, the ban on grantng bail operates. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantal probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Even on fulfilling one of the conditons, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence, the Court stll 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 quantty would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts. [30]. From the summary of the law relatng to rigors of S.37 of NDPS Act, while grantng bail involving commercial quanttes, the following fundamental principles emerge:

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

(1) SCC 705, Para 6].

(b). The limitatons on grantng of bail come in only when the queston of grantng bail arises on merits. [Customs, New Delhi v. AhmadalievaNodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7].

(c). The provisions of Secton 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 conditons are to be mandatorily satsfied in additon 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 grantng opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditons which really have relevance are the Court's satsfacton 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 satsfacton contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be more than prima facie grounds, considering substantal probable causes for believing and justfying 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 justfy satsfacton 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]. order/judgment. 3

(h). Twin conditons of S. 37 are cumulatve and not alternatve. [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 metculously to arrive at a positve finding as to whether or not the accused has commiPed 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. RaPan Mallik @ Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624, Para 14].

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

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

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

(2014) 13 SCC 1, Para 5].

(m). While considering the applicaton for bail concerning Secton 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 Secton 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 quanttatve analysis of the samples from the laboratory, the prosecuton cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the accused possessed a commercial quantty 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 quantty of psychotropic substances, such accused is not enttled to bail given Secton 37 of the Act as contemplated under the NDPS Act. [State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad ArimuPa, 2022:INSC:26 [Para 11], 2022 SCC OnLine SC 47, Para 12].

(p). Bail must be subject to stringent conditons. [Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, 2020:INSC:101 [Para 12], 2020 SCC Online SC 84, Para 12]. [31]. Satsfying the fePers of S. 37 of the NDPS Act is candling the infertle eggs. The stringent conditons of secton 37 placed in the statute by the legislature do not create a bar for bail for specified categories, including the commercial quantty; however, it createsJYOTI order/judgment. 4 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 pettons under general penal statutes like IPC.

¶12A perusal of the bail petton and the documents aPached primafacie points towards the pettoner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would also not justfy bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pettoner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶13Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶14Pe11on dismissed. All pending applicatons, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

16.07.2025 Jyo1-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.07.2025 Pronounced on: 16.07.2025 Abhyansh Tuli ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the pettoner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. ****