Bhupinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1on 218 06.08.2022 Phillaur, Jalandhar 22 of NDPS Act

¶1The pettoner incarcerated in the FIR captoned above had come up fitih tme before this Court under Secton 483 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2As per paragraph 8 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta1on

¶119 02.02.2019 379 IPC Kharar, Dis<. SAS Nagar

¶2161 08.08.2018 22, 29 of NDPS Act Mataur, Dis<. SAS Nagar

¶3The facts and allegatons are taken from the status report filed by the State. On

06.08.2022, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 95 bo<les of Pheniramine Maleate Injectons and 95 Buprenorphine Injectons from a bag lying in the car in which the pettoner was travelling. During investgaton, it was found that the said bag containing intoxicant belongs to the pettoner.

¶4The Investgator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.

¶5The pettoner's counsel submits that the pettoner has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing has been recovered from him. order/judgment. 1

¶6The 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.

¶7The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶8It would be appropriate to refer following porton of the status report, which reads as follows: "5. xxx xxx On 05.08.2022, the pettoner namely Bhupinder Singh Sandhu bought the recovered contraband from a person namely Deepak of Roorkee, UP for Rs.11,000/-. Therea+er, a+er purchasing the recovered contraband from Deepak, the pettoner came to his in-laws house in Mohali around 07:30 PM on 05.08.2022 and upon reaching his in-laws house, the pettoner booked a cab through "Bla Bla" App for going from Rajpura, to Amritsar. A+er the booking was done, the cab company gave mobile no. of the pettoner 62830-xxxxx to co-accused Kamaldeep Singh. Furthermore, it was found that co-accused Kamaldeep Singh had called the pettoner and told him to reach Khanna on his own as he already has a passenger and from Khanna, Kamaldeep Singh will drop the pettoner at Amritsar. Accordingly, the pettoner reached Khanna and took Kamaldeep Singh's cab. It is apposite to menton herein that before si9ng in Kamaldeep Singh's car, the pettoner kept his bag (containing the contraband) on the back seat of Kamaldeep Singh's car and pettoner sat next to the driver seat. Thus, Kamaldeep Singh was found to be innocent and he was discharged in the instant case on 18.11.2022." REASONING:

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

¶10However, the pettoner is enttled to bail because Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents: 1) In Junaid Alam v. State of U<arakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) 7708-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. It is pointed out that the pettoner has been in custody for last more than 18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is then submi<ed that only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecuton order/judgment. 2 witnesses have been examined and they have not said anything to connect the pettoner with the crime. [3]. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the concerned Contraband are medicinal drugs but they are sold for profit. Moreover, it is of commercial quantty. [4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the prohibited medicines (SYP Codectus 100 Bo<les (100 Ml each), Cap Pyeevon Spas Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules, Spasonof NF 960 capsules, Capsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144, Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules, Alprasafe Table 600 Tablets, Pyeevon Spas Plus 32 Capsules). [5]. Having considered the above and the fact that the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date, we are of the view that the pettoner – Junaid Alam deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditons be imposed by the trial court.

¶11The prolonged incarceraton, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Artcle 21 of the Consttuton and in such a situaton, the conditonal liberty must override the statutory embargo created under 1Secton 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act .

¶12In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the appellant has been under incarceraton for more than one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, though, it is submi<ed by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable length of tme. There is no antecedent involving the appellant. [6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted bail, subject to the conditons that may be imposed by the Trial Court.

¶13Given the above, the pettoner's pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial precedents mentoned above; the pettoner is enttled to bail under Artcle 14 of the Consttuton of India.

¶14Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.

¶15As per the custody certficate dated 14.02.2025, the pettoner's custody in this 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 order/judgment. 3 FIR is two years, six months and six days. Given the drugs were medicines that a<racted violaton of S. 22 of NDPS Act, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegatons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justfiability for further pre-trial incarceraton at this stage.

¶16Without commentng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentoned above, the pettoner makes a case for bail. CONDITIONS:

¶17Given above, provided the pettoner is not required in any other case, the pettoner shall be released on bail in the FIR captoned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satsfacton of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before acceptng the surety, the concerned Court must be satsfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶18While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoner shall menton the following personal identficaton details:

¶1AADHAR number

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

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶19This order is subject to the pettoner's complying with the following terms.

¶20The pettoner shall abide by all statutory bond conditons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pettoner 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 allegatons against the pettoner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detecton staff and incapacitatng the accused would be one of the primary optons untl the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acqui<al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restricton is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; order/judgment. 4 and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sancton]. Given the nature of the allegatons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pettoner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuniton, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fitieen days of release from prison and inform the Investgator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pettoner shall be enttled to renew and reclaim them in case of acqui<al in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restrictng firearms would instll confidence in the victm(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeatng the offense.

¶22The conditons mentoned 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 Petton (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 conditons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditons that would result in the deprivaton of rights and libertes must be eschewed."

¶23In 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 pettoner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the pettoner is bound to face the necessary consequences."

¶24This bail is condi#onal, and the founda#onal condi#on is that if the pe##oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an applica#on for cancella#on of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶25The concerned trial court is authorized to delete, modify, or relax any of the above conditons and shall be competent to do so in accordance with the law.

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

¶27A certfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pettoner 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<estng officer order/judgment. 5 wants to verify its authentcity, such an officer can also verify its authentcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for a<estng bonds.

¶28Pe11on allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

28.02.2025 Jyo1-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 17.02.2025 Pronounced on: 28.02.2025 Bhupinder Singh Sandhu ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate, for the pettoner. Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab. ****