Laila Begum v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0065

12.03.2025 Sarai

Khawaja, District Faridabad 20, 21 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added during investigation)

¶1The 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.

¶2Per Note 1 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are taken from the order rejecting bail by the Sessions Court. On 12.03.2025, based on prior information, the Police seized 2 kg 926 grams Ganja from the possession of petitioner. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

¶4The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.

¶5The 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. Counsel further submits that co-accused namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2025 passed in CRM-M No.28397 of 2025.

¶6The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Special Judge or Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

¶7The State's counsel opposes bail on instructions.

¶8Quantity involved in this case is non-commercial (intermediate).

¶9Section 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.

¶10The petitioner is entitled to bail because for the same contraband, and when the quantity involved was either more or closer to the quantity seized in the present FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedent:

¶11In Rajesh v. The State of Haryana, decided on 20-11-2024, SLP (Crl) 14037-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioner is an accused in a case bearing FIR No.67 dated 25.01.2024 registered with Police Station Majesar, District Faridabad, Haryana for the offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called "NDPS") . The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a alleged recovery of 1.200 kgs of ganja (contraband article) from him. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 10 months in jail. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State. The bail has not been granted by the High Court only for the reason that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Although, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of four cases, there is only one case of NDPS against the petitioner and the remaining cases (three in number) relate to Excise Act and not of NDPS. Under these circumstances, considering the quantity of the contraband article and the period of incarceration of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.

¶12Per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2025.

¶13The 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.

¶14Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the case's merits, and considering the petitioner's pre-trial custody, the weight of the contraband, petitioner is a woman coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this stage, subject to the terms and conditions of this order. However, this order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court's official webpage.

¶15Given 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 or 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.

¶16While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

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

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶17This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶18The 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 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 Court.

¶19Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, 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 firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the 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 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 of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under 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.

¶20The 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held 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."

¶21In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP

(Crl) 12225-2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences."

¶22The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition.

¶23This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the

petitioner repeats the offense where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the Special Judge/ Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.

¶24Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶25A certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds. An Advocate for the Petitioner can download the order from the Court's official web page and attest it as a true copy. If needed, the attesting officer can verify its authenticity online and use the downloaded copy to attest bonds.

¶26Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

31.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.07.2025 Pronounced on: 31.07.2025 Laila Begum ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate and Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana. ****