As per case facts, an FIR was registered based on secret information about a large drug racket involving the procurement and supply of commercial quantities of intoxicant tablets and substances. ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(I) CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.05.2025
Rakesh Bansal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(II) CRM-M-36969-2024 (O&M)
Gaurav Arora ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(III) CRM-M-13577-2025 (O&M)
Jatinder Kumar Arora @ Vicky ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(IV) CRM-M-13805-2025 (O&M)
Zulfikar Ali @ Zulfi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(V) CRM-M-15330-2025 (O&M)
Narinder Khanna @ Bunty ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(VI) CRM-M-18377-2025 (O&M)
Sachin Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
2
(VII) CRM-M-52379-2024 (O&M)
Rajesh Sachdeva @ Harish Bhatia ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(VIII) CRM-M-5155-2025 (O&M)
Ferozedeen @ Fauji ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(IX) CRM-M-62490-2024 (O&M)
Manpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(X) CRM-M-16454-2025 (O&M)
Ravinder Singh @ Binda ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(XI) CRM-M-16419-2025 (O&M)
Aman Singla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(XII) CRM-M-16886-2025 (O&M)
Deepak Arora ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(XIII) CRM-M-17466-2025 (O&M)
Rajesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar @Raju ...Petitioner
Versus
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
3
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(XIV) CRM-M-18529-2025 (O&M)
Varinder Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(XV) CRM-M-19080-2025 (O&M)
Lovepreet Singh @ Lavi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(XVI) CRM-M-19560-2025 (O&M)
Bittu Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(XVII) CRM-M-20431-2025 (O&M)
Satveer Singh @ Satti ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present:- Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Mr.R.S.Bagga & Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocates
for the petitioner in CRM-M-51040-2024.
Mr. G.S.Aulakh, Advocate for
Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-36969-2024.
Dr. S.K. Passi, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CRM-M Nos.52379, 13805,19080 & 17466 of 2025.
Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate & Mr. Sajanpreet Singh, Advocate for
the petitioner(s)in CRM-M-62490-2024 & CRM-M-20431-2025.
Mr. Arjunveer Sharma & Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocates
for the petitioner in CRM-M Nos.5155, 13577,
16419 & 19560 of 2025.
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
4
Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M No.16454 of 2025.
Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M No.15330 of 2025.
Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M No.18377 of 2025.
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M No.16886 of 2025.
Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M No.18529 of 2025.
Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
This order shall dispose off afore-mentioned 17 petitions seeking
bail pending trial in FIR No.72 dated 23.05.2020, under Sections 21, 22, 25 & 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS
Act’), registered at Police Station, Mehal Kalan, District Barnala.
(2) Above FIR was registered on the basis of secret information
received on 23.05.2020 at 09:30 PM by police with the allegation that Lovepreet
Singh @ Lovy s/o Ajmer Singh; Ravinder Singh @ Binda s/o Nachhattar Singh,
residents of Divana; Satvir Singh @ Satti s/o Gurmeet Singh, r/o Chhiniwal
Khurd; Balwinder Singh @ Nikka s/o Gurjant Singh, r/o Bakhatgarh and Ravi,
r/o Chakkar, in connivance with each other, have formed a racket; engaged in
procuring intoxicant tablets & narcotic substance from outside the State and
supplying the same in Tallewal, Mehal Kalan and nearby villages to the persons
who are involved in such like activities. Also alleged that all of them were seen
roaming in Verna Car bearing registration No.PB11-AY-1700 (white colour)
around Mehal Kalan Town and they are likely to supply the same in Mehal Kalan
Town and nearby areas. If a raid is conducted, all of them can be nabbed along
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
5
with contraband. The information was found to be credible and as a result
thereof, the above FIR was registered.
(3) CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
(I) CRM-M-51040-2024 (RAKESH BANSAL)
(i) Contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Also contends that he is neither named in the FIR (supra); nor any recovery
has been effected from him.
(ii) Further contends that petitioner was nominated on the basis of
disclosure made by co-accused Jatinder Kumar @ Vicky on 26.07.2020 and was
arrested on 22.01.2024 i.e. after a period of four years, for the reasons best
known to the prosecution.
(iii) Vehemently contends that petitioner is one of the Directors of
Company, namely, Ridley Life Science Private Limited (for short “RLSP Ltd.”)
which was authorised to manufacture drugs other than those specified in
Schedules C and C(1) to the Drugs Rules, 1945 on the premises situated at D-
1651 DSIIDC, Industrial Complex, Narela, Delhi-110040 vide licence No. 1931
dated 01.06.2009 (A-1 colly.) which was renewed from time to time uptill
31.05.2024; thus RLSP Ltd. was well within its right to manufacture the drugs in
question.
(iv) Again contends that there is no document on record to show that
petitioner had ever sold any drug manufactured by his company i.e. RLSP Ltd. in
the State of Punjab; rather the same were sold in the State of Uttar Pradesh where
the drugs in question are permissible for sale.
(v) While referring to Rabi Prakash Versus State of Odisha, 2023 SCC
Online SC 1109, it is contended that prolonged incarceration militates against
most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
and in such a situation, conditional liberty must override statutory embargo
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
6
created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. He further relied upon
Shince babu versus State of Kerala SLP (Crl.) No. 16642/2023 and Mahendra
versus The State of Rajasthan SLP (Crl.) No. 2599/2024 wherein, petitioner(s)
were granted bail by relaxing the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act in case of
long incarceration.
(vi) Again contends that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court passed in case titled as Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu,
SCC (2021) 4 SCC 1 mere disclosure would not be the basis to fasten any
criminal liability upon the petitioner, as the disclosure has no evidentiary value in
the eyes of law.
(vii) Lastly contended that petitioner has been arrested after a gap of four
years; therefore, he is facing a separate de novo trial in which although, charges
have been framed, but out of total 160 prosecution witnesses, only 05 have been
examined; hence conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time and no useful
purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for such a long
period.
(II) CRM-M-36969-2024 (GAURAV ARORA)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR. He was
nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Jitender
Kumar on 26.07.2020.
(ii) Also contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present petition. In fact, he is a Chemical Engineer holding a degree in M.Sc
International Business. He is the Director of one pharmaceutical company,
namely, “M/s Neutec Health care Private Ltd.” incorporated on 09.09.2010.
Petitioner is a licenced manufacturer of various medicines, including
psychotropic substances.
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
7
(iii) Vehemently contends that in any case, petitioner cannot be
prosecuted under the NDPS Act. If there is any violation at all, the offence falls
within the ambit of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘Drugs Act’)
(iv) Further contends that on 26.08.2020, a team of SIT raided the house
of petitioner i.e. E-34, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and arrested him along with
his father, namely, Krishan Kumar Arora, without disclosing any reasons,
whatsoever. Also contends that petitioner as well as his father were taken from
Delhi to Barnala where they obtained their remand from the Court of competent
jurisdiction, which was got extended uptil 07.09.2020.
(III) CRM-M-13577-2025 (JITENDER KUMAR ARORA @
VICKY)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR. Also, he was
never named by any of the co-accused who were arrested on the spot; rather
during investigation, was nominated on 14.07.2020 as an accused on the basis of
disclosure made by one of the co-accused Raju Sachdeva @ Harish Bhatia and
such type of evidence is inadmissible in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble
the Supreme Court in “Tofan Singh’s case (supra)”.
(ii) Again contends that on 25.07.2020 i.e. after 2 months of registration
of FIR, police party proceeded from Barnala to Agra and petitioner was arrested.
Also contends that Rs. 1,720 and one mobile phone were recovered from his
personal search. Thereafter, he was brought to Barnala without obtaining any
transit remand.
(iii) Yet again contends that father of petitioner is having a valid license
issued by the competent authority for running a Chemist Shop; the entire drugs,
recovered from the petitioner, were purchased against proper bills under the
name and style of M/s Krishna Agency; but the police completely ignored the
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
8
material at the time of alleged recovery; hence, the entire prosecution case is
vitiated.
(iv) Further contends that petitioner was not found in conscious
possession of the alleged contraband inasmuch as the keys of godown were lying
in the possession of his father.
(IV) CRM-M-13805-2025 (ZULFIKAR ALI @ ZULFI)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR.; rather
nominated on 26.05.2020 on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused, namely,
Balwinder Singh @ Nikka who were arrested on the spot.
(ii) Also contends that petitioner is running a wholesale Chemist shop
under the name and style of M/s Ali Medicos, Malerkotla, District Sangrur for
which he is holding a valid chemist licence 20B-PB-SG2-132087 and 21B-PB-
SG2-132088 issued on 22.03.2018 valid uptil 21.03.2023 under the provisions of
Drugs Act.
(V) CRM-M-15330-2025 (NARINDER KHANNA @ BUNTY)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated
on 18.07.2020 on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused, namely, Sachin
Sharma and was arrested on the same day.
(ii) Also contends that petitioner is running a Chemist shop under the
name and style M/s Om Pharma, for which he is holding a chemist licence No.
142841 & 142842 issued on 03.04.2019 valid uptil 02.04.2024 under the
provisions of Drugs Act.
(iii) Further contends that petitioner was not found in conscious
possession of the alleged contraband and mandatory provisions under Sections
42, 50 and 52 of NDPS Act have not been complied with.
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
9
(VI) CRM-M-18377-2025 (SACHIN SHARMA)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated
on 14.07.2020 on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused, namely, Raju
Sachdeva @ Harish Bhatia; thereafter, he was arrested after four days i.e. on
18.07.2020 from District Sonepat.
(ii) Also contends that initially petitioner was taken from Sonepat to
Barnala, where no disclosure statement was recorded. Subsequently without
assigning any reason, he was then taken to Amritsar and there his statement was
recorded. In this regard, neither any warrants were obtained from Magistrate at
Barnala; nor any DDR was recorded at Amritsar in the police station concerned.
(iii) Further contends that petitioner was not found in conscious
possession of the alleged contraband and mandatory provisions under Sections
42, 50 and 52 of NDPS Act have not been complied with.
(VII) CRM-M-52379-2024 (RAJU SACHDEVA @ HARISH
BHATIA)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather was
nominated on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Zulfikar @ Zulfi on
22.06.2020. Thereafter, he was arrested on 10.07.2020 from West Bengal.
(ii) Also contends that petitioner is doing business of selling shoes in
wholesale market in West Bengal. No recovery was effected from his conscious
possession; rather the alleged contraband was recovered from one rented
accommodation in Amritsar.
(VIII) CRM-M-5155-2025 (FEROZDEEN @ FAUJI)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather he was
arrayed as an accused merely on the ground that he being owner of the Verna car
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
10
bearing registration No. PB-11-AY-1700, which was used by other co-accused
for selling the alleged contraband.
(ii) Again contends that petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2021 by way of
production warrants as he was already in judicial custody in another FIR No. 85
Dated 04.12.2020 registered at Police Station Tallewal under Section 22 and 29
of NDPS Act.
(iii) While referring to Dheeraj Kumar Shukla versus State of Uttar
Pradesh, SLP(Crl.) No. 6690 of 2022, it is contended that in the absence of
criminal antecedents coupled with prolonged incarceration, especially when trial
is yet to commence, the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of
the NDPS Act can be dispensed with.
(IX) CRM-M-62490-2024 (MANPREET SINGH)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated
on 01.06.2020 on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused, namely, Zulfikar
@ Zulfi; thereafter, he was arrested after two days i.e. on 03.06.2020.
(ii) Further contends that petitioner was not found in conscious
possession of the alleged contraband and mandatory provisions under Sections
42, 50 and 52 of NDPS Act have not been complied with.
(X) CRM-M-16454-2025 (RAVINDER SINGH @ BINDA)
(i) Contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Also contends no recovery has been effected from his conscious possession.
(ii) Again contends that petitioner is working as a caterer (Halwai), and
he is a resident of Uttar Pradesh, hence, he has no connection with any of the co-
accused.
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
11
(iii) Further contends that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 51 of
NDPS Act have not been complied with inasmuch as none of the independent
witnesses were joined during recovery proceedings.
(XI) CRM-M-16419-2025 (AMAN SINGLA)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated
on 01.06.2020 on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused, namely, Zulfikar
@ Zulfi; thereafter, he was arrested on the very next day i.e. on 02.06.2020.
(ii) Also contends that petitioner was neither driver; nor owner of the
car i.e. i-20 bearing registration no. PB-19-R-8910 from where the alleged
contraband was recovered.
(iii) Again contends that alleged contraband was not recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioner; rather the same was recovered from the
car of co-accused, namely, Bittu Ram.
(iv) While referring to Dheeraj Kumar Shukla’s case (supra), it is
contended that in the absence of criminal antecedents coupled with prolonged
incarceration, especially when trial is yet to commence, the statutory embargo
created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act can be dispensed with.
(XII) CRM-M-16886-2025 (DEEPAK ARORA)
(i) Contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Also contends that alleged recovery has been planted against the petitioner.
(ii) Further contends that the place of recovery i.e. godown was never
possessed by the petitioner; rather his signatures were obtained on blank papers
while he was in custody and the papers were later on converted into rent
agreement of the said godown.
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
12
(XIII) CRM-M-17466-2025 (RAJESH KUMAR @ RAKESH
KUMAR @RAJU)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated
on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused, namely, Narinder Khanna ;
thereafter, he was arrested on the very next day i.e. on 19.07.2020.
(ii) Again contends that petitioner is partner in one Transport company
namely, SBC Transporter, Amritsar and apart that, there is no other material
regarding his complicity; hence, no offence is made out against him.
(iii) Also contends that false recovery has been implanted upon the
petitioner and intoxicant tablets and capsules were alleged to be recovered from
the premises which does not belong to petitioner.
(XIV) CRM-M-18529-2025 (VARINDER KUMAR)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated
on 18.07.2020 on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused, namely, Rajesh
Kumar @ Raju; thereafter, he was arrested on the very next day i.e. on
19.07.2020.
(ii) Further contends that false recovery has been implanted upon the
petitioner and apart that, there is no other material regarding his complicity.
(iii) Again contends that petitioner was not found in conscious
possession of the alleged contraband and mandatory provisions under Sections
42, 50 and 52 of NDPS Act have not been complied with.
(XV) CRM-M-19080 -2025 (LOVEPREET SINGH @ LAVI)
(i) Contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case and has nothing to do with the alleged commission of crime.
(ii) Further contends that petitioner was sitting at the rear left seat of
Verna Car bearing registration No. PB-11-AY-1700; whereas the alleged
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
13
recovery of contraband was effected from co-accused Ravinder Singh @ Bhinda
who was sitting at the conductor seat of the car.
(XVI) CRM-M-19560 -2025 (BITTU RAM)
(i) Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated
on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Zulfikar @ Zulfi on 01.06.2020
and was arrested on the very next day i.e. 02.06.2025.
(ii) While referring to Dheeraj Kumar Shukla’s case (supra), it is
contended that in the absence of criminal antecedents coupled with prolonged
incarceration, especially when trial is yet to commence, the statutory embargo
created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act can de dispensed with.
(XVII) CRM-M-20431-2025 (SATVEER SINGH @ SATTI)
(i) Contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case and has nothing to do with the alleged commission of crime.
(ii) Again contends that petitioner was not found in conscious
possession of the alleged contraband and mandatory provisions under Sections
42, 50 and 52 of NDPS Act have not been complied with.
On behalf of all the petitioners, (except Rakesh Bansal), it is
commonly contended that, they are in judicial custody for more than 4 years; out
of 27 accused, 5 are yet to be apprehended; there are total 160 prosecution
witnesses & only 54 have been examined till date, 46 have been given up, 3 have
died and 57 are yet to be examined; thus, conclusion of trial will take sufficient
long time and as such, further incarceration of the petitioners would not serve
any purpose.
(4) Per contra, learned State Counsel, while opposing the prayer,
submits that all the petitioners are actively involved in
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
14
manufacturing/supplying/transporting illegal drugs in connivance with each
other; hence, their complicity is well apparent in the present case.
4.1 Also submits that all the accused are running a big racket and there
is huge recovery of intoxicant tablets & capsules (more than 3 crore) apart from
drug money (more than Rs.9 lakh) as well as six Cars; 10 mobile phones and
more than 15 Kg. of broken loose intoxicant tablets.
4.2 Further submits that all the accused have been charged under the
NDPS Act as well as Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’) for using false &
fabricated bills while manufacturing/supplying/transporting/selling the
contraband.
4.3 Vehemently submits that, after making strenuous efforts, Police
apprehended the petitioners and if they are released on bail, they will hamper the
trial and tamper with the evidence. Also submits that five more accused are yet to
be arrested.
4.4 Lastly submits that all the petitioners except two, namely, Sachin
Sharma and Deepak Arora are involved in other cases as well; therefore, in view
of their criminal antecedents, they do not deserve the concession of bail.
(5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.
(6) Records reveal that on 23.05.2020, while relying upon a secret
information, Police party reached Village Tallewal, Mehal Kalan, District
Barnala where one Verna Car bearing No. PB-11-AY-1700 was found parked.
Love Preet Singh @ Lavi; Ravinder Singh @ Binda; Satvinder Singh @ Satti and
Balwinder Singh @ Nikka were sitting in the said car. On search, a huge quantity
of contraband i.e. 2500 tablets of Clovidol-100 SR, manufactured by Neutec
Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., was recovered from them.
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
15
(7) After complying with the necessary formalities, they were taken into
police custody. On the disclosure made by said Balwinder Singh @ Nikka,
Zulfikar Ali @ Zulfi was nominated as an accused in the present case on
26.05.2020.
(8) On the disclosure of Zulfikar Ali @ Zulfi, four more persons i.e.
Bittu Ram, Aman Singla, Manpreet Singh & Ferozedeen @ Fauji were
nominated as accused on 01.06.2020.
(9) It further transpires that on the basis of disclosure(s) of co-accused
Manpreet Singh, Sachin Sharma, Narinder Khanna, Rajesh Kumar @ Rakesh
Kumar @ Raju and Jitender Kumar, the remaining accused were nominated and
arrested in the present case. The following chart would depict the recovery of
alleged contraband from each of the accused:-
Sr.
No.
Name of accused Recovery
1. Love Preet Singh @
Lavi; Ravinder Singh @
Binda; Satvinder Singh
@ Satti and Balwinder
Singh @ Nikka
2,500 tablets of Clovidol-100 SR
2. Balwinder Singh @
Nikka
(i) 2,50,000 lakh tablets of
Clovidol-100 SR.
(ii) Drug money amounting to Rs.
4 lakh.
3. Zulfikar Ali @ Zulfi 12,000 tablets Clovidol-100 SR
4. Bittu Ram & Aman
Singla
(i) One i20 CAR
(ii) 10,500 TABELTS WERE
RECOVERED
5. Manpreet Singh 5,000 intoxicant tablets
6. Raju Sachdeva @ Harish
Bhatia
(i) 97,600 intoxicant capsules
from Uttar Pradesh
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
16
(ii) 20,000 intoxicant tablets
(iii) Drug Money amounting to Rs.
85,000.
7. Sachin Sharma (i) 1,00,000 intoxicant tablets
(ii) Drug money amounting to Rs.
4,50,000 from Amritsar.
8. Narinder Khanna (i) 6,40,000 intoxicant tablets
(ii) 1,60,000 intoxicant capsules
9. Varinder Kumar 3,200 intoxicant tablets
10. Amit Kumar @ Rajan (i) 5,17,700 intoxicant tablets and
capsules
(ii) one HONDA CITY CAR
11. Deepak Arora 75,000 intoxicant tablets
12. Rajesh Kumar @ Rakesh
Kumar @ Raju
50,000 intoxicant tablets
13. Jitender Kumar Arora @
Vicky
(i) 1,20,454 intoxicant tablets
(ii) 34,704 intoxicant capsules
from Agra
(iii) 11,800 loose tablets.
(iv) 10 mobile phones
14. Gaurav Arora (i) 1,81,06,950 intoxicant tablets
(ii) 1,03,88,892 intoxicant
capsules
(iii) 15 kgs 70 gms. broken loose
tablets.
15. Krishan Kumar Arora One Honda City Car bearing No.
MH-02-EE-4197.
(10) Before proceeding further, it is necessary to recapitulate provisions
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which govern the field for grant of bail where the
alleged contraband is commercial in nature. Section 37 is extracted here as
under:-
Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Offences to be cognizable and
non-bailable.—
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
17
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences
under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for
offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on
bail or on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the
time being in force on granting of bail.”
Aforesaid Section is in the nature of non-obstante clause to Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 including Section 439 thereof {now Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)} and which, inter
alia, lays down that no person accused of an offence involving commercial
quantity shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are
“reasonable grounds” for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and
not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(11) Both the above conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The
law is well settled that requirement of satisfaction in terms of Section 37 (1)(b)
(ii) (ibid) regarding the accused being not guilty is to be recorded on the basis of
reasonable grounds and that should be more than prima facie.
(12) The twin-test stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been
considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘Union of India Versus Rattan
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
18
Malik Alias Habul’, (2009) 2 SCC 624’ and para Nos.12 & 13 of the same being
relevant read as under:-
“12. It is plain from a bare reading of the non-obstante clause in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act and sub-section (2) thereof that the
power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence
under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is
also subject to the restrictions placed by clause (b) of sub- section
(1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity
to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release,
the other twin conditions viz; (i) the satisfaction of the court that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is manifest that the
conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction
contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be
based on "reasonable grounds".
13. The expression “reasonable grounds” has not been defined
in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds.
It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The
reasonable belief contemplated in turn, points to existence of such
facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence (vide
Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari). Thus, recording of
satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for
granting of bail under the NDPS Act.”
(13) Again, in ‘Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC
100’, the same view was reiterated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as under:-
“21. Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the limitations on the grant
of bail for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27-A and
also for offences involving a commercial quantity are:
(i) The Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the
application for bail; and
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
19
(ii) There must exist “reasonable grounds to believe” that : (a) the
person is not guilty of such an offence; and (b) he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
22. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is
“reasonable ground to believe” that the person is not guilty of the
offence. Interpreting the standard of “reasonable grounds to
believe”, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari,
held that : (SCC pp. 801-02, paras 7-8 & 10-11)
“7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable
grounds”. The expression means something more than prima
facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged
and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to
existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in
themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused
is not guilty of the offence charged.
8. The word “reasonable” has in law the prima facie meaning
of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the
actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It
is difficult to give an exact definition of the word
“reasonable”.
‘7. … In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2258 states
that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact definition of
the word “reasonable”. Reason varies in its conclusions
according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the times
and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which
built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling
of a child's toy.’
10. The word “reasonable” signifies “in accordance with
reason”. In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact,
whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the
circumstances in a given situation. (See Municipal Corpn. of
Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd. [Municipal Corpn. of
Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 315] )
11. The court while considering the application for bail with
reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record
a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially
confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that
the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
20
satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court
has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a
judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.”
24. In the present case, the High Court while granting bail to
the respondent adverted to two circumstances, namely, (i) absence
of recovery of the contraband from the possession of the respondent;
and (ii) the wrong name in the endorsement of translation of the
statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
25. We shall deal with each of these circumstances in turn.
The respondent has been accused of an offence under Section 8 of
the NDPS Act, which is punishable under Sections 21, 27-A, 29,
60(3) of the said Act. Section 8 of the Act prohibits a person from
possessing any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The
concept of possession recurs in Sections 20 to 22, which provide for
punishment for offences under the Act. In Madan Lal v. State of H.P,
this Court held that:-
“19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be
determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts
which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that
all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle and as
noted by the trial court they were known to each other and it
has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled
together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not
a public vehicle.
20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an
offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act which
relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is
submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there
must be a conscious possession.
21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled
with the requisite mental element i.e. conscious possession
and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such
possession, Section 20 is not attracted.
22. The expression “possession” is a polymorphous term
which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may
carry different meanings in contextually different
backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Supt. &
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja
[Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar
Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038] to work
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
21
out a completely logical and precise definition of
“possession” uniform[ly] applicable to all situations in the
context of all statutes.
23. The word “conscious” means awareness about a
particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or
intended.”
26. Once possession is established, the person who claims
that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because
how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge.
Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position
because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position
in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be
drawn from possession of illicit articles.”
(14) Apart that, the menace of drugs has completely ruined the State of
Punjab and which needs to be dealt with sternly. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
‘Parwinder Singh @ Parminder Kumar @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab’, SLP
(Crl.) 12601-2023, decided on 14.12.2023, has held as under:-
“5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered view that the parameters of granting bail in a case under
special statutes like NDPS Act may not be liberally construed in the
instant case. We say so taking notice of the fact that the State of
Punjab is reeling under the grip of drug menace. There are several
drug lords whose roots are identifiable in the State of Punjab, and
who operate in the cross-border drug racketing and organized
trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It is a
matter of common knowledge that huge cache of illicit drugs is
smuggled across the border. Some local Pharmaceutical Industries,
State police officials and other affluent people have been suspected
to be involved, at occasions, in international drug trafficking. The
drug addiction has posed a serious threat to the once vibrant state
of Punjab. The Courts, therefore, ought to be highly circumspect
while granting bail, especially to a repeat offender. The appellant,
as it seems from the allegations, is a drug peddler and there is every
likelihood of his returning to the same illicit trade once he is
allowed the privilege of pre-arrest bail
.”
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
22
(15) A perusal of the testimonies of PWs reveals that complicity of
petitioners is well apparent, but this Court refrains itself from the minute
evaluation of facts lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties.
(16) It is worth notice that prosecution has already examined 54 PWs and
46 PWs have been given up, 3 have died and 57 are yet to be examined; thus,
trial is going at a reasonable pace. There is no lapse on the part of prosecution.
(17) The judicial pronouncements cited by learned counsel for the
petitioners are of no help because they are distinguishable on facts as under:
(i) Rabi Prakash’s case (supra), it was held by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court that trial is going at a slow speed as out of 19 PWs,
only one had been examined and petitioner was behind bars for
more than 3 and half years, whereas in the present case, trial is
going at a reasonable pace as 54 PWs have already been examined.
(ii) In Shince Babu’s case (supra), petitioner was granted bail by
learned trial Court and thereafter, State filed application for
cancellation of bail before High Court. Also on a specific query to
the State, it was not disputed that no contraband was recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner, whereas, in the case in
hand, no bail was granted by learned Special Court and alleged
contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of
petitioner(s).
(iii) In Mahendra’s case (supra), the recovery was not effected
from the conscious possession of the accused; therefore, rigors of
Section 37 of NDPS Act was relaxed. However, in the present case,
alleged contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of
petitioner(s).
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
23
(iv) In Dheeraj Kumar Shukla’s case (supra), although, the
charges were framed, but the trial had not commenced and the
petitioner was behind bars for more than two and a half years. In the
present case, the trial has already commenced and 54 PWs have
been examined.
(v) In Tofan Singh's case (supra), conviction was challenged by the
appellants therein; but here, it is only a bail application and trial is
going at a normal pace.
(18) Although, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) tried to impress upon
the Court while citing afore-mentioned judgments that long custody is sufficient
to dilute the rigor of twin-test satisfaction; but this Court is not persuaded for the
following reasons:-
(i) in an ordinary case, long incarceration may be a ground for bail,
but in the present case, recovery alleged against the petitioners is not
only commercial; but heavy in nature, including 3,05,72,696
intoxicant tablets and capsules; 15 kg and 70 gms broken lose
tablets; drug money amounting to Rs.9,35,000; six vehicles and 10
mobile phones;
(ii) as on today, 54 PWs have already been examined; there is no
lapse on the part of prosecution and trial is going on a normal pace;
(iii) even the antecedents of the petitioners are also not clean; rather
they are habitual offenders and involved in the following criminal
cases:-
RAKESH BANSAL-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 344 dt.
13.07.2020
22, 25 & 29
of NDPS Act;
City Barnala Undertrial
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
24
Sec. 7 & 13 of
PC Act; 465,
467, 468,
471/120-B
IPC
2. Crl.Com-41336
dt. 2022
18-a(i) &
18(B) of
Drugs &
Cosmetics
Act
Titled as
“State through
Drug Control
Officer, LDH.
Vs. Rakesh
Bansal, before
ld. CJM,
Ludhiana
Undertrial
3. 112 dt. 2019 304-A IPC Narela,
Industrial
Area, New
Delhi
Undertrial
GAURAV ARORA-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police Station Status
1. 344 dt.
13.07.2020
22 & 29 of
NDPS Act
City Barnala Undertrial
2. 95 dt.
25.02.2020
22, 25, 29
of NDPS
Act
City Barnala Undertrial
3. 02 dt.
01.01.2020
8 & 29
NDPS Act
CBN Undertrial
4. 277 dt.
29.07.2020
22-C, 27-
A NDPS
Act
Sadar
Fatehabad
Undertrial
5. 08 dt.
01.01.2020
8, 22 & 29
NDPS
Act, 120-
B IPC
Keshrisinghpur Undertrial
6. 247 dt.
28.07.2020
22-C, 27-
A, 29
NDPS Act
Bhuna Undertrial
7. 63 dt.
23.03.2019
22, 25, 29
NDPS
Sardulgarh Undertrial
8. 172 dt.
31.08.2019
22-C, 27-
A NDPS
Act
Bhattu Kalan Undertrial
9. 637 dt.
09.11.2015
188, 406,
420 IPC
Sampla Undertrial
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
25
JITENDER KUMAR ARORA @ VICKY-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 344 dt.
13.07.2020
22 & 29 of
NDPS Act
City Barnala Undertrial
ZULFIQAR ALI @ ZULFI-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 139 dt.
26.05.2019
21 & 29 of
NDPS Act
Sadar Dhuri Undertrial
2. CC-2233 dt.
01.01.2021
-- -- Undertrial
NARINDER KHANNA @ BUNTY-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 58 dt.
20.03.2013
22 of
NDPS Act
City Rajpura Convicted
RAJU SACHDEVA @ HARISH BHATIA-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 344 dt.
13.07.2020
22 & 29 of
NDPS Act
City Barnala Undertrial
2. 95 dt.
25.02.2020
22, 25, 29
of NDPS
Act
City Barnala Undertrial
3. 33 dt.
12.06.2020
8, 21, 22,
29 & 60 of
NDPS Act
NCB, Chd. Undertrial
4. VIII/26/DZU
dt. 01.01.2020
8, 22 & 29
NDPS Act
Narcotic Cell Undertrial
5. 88 dt.
12.09.2021
52-A
Prisons
Act
Cantt.
Bathinda
Undertrial
FEROZEDEEN @ FAUJI-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 85 dt.
04.12.2020
22 & 25 of
NDPS Act
Tallewal Undertrial
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
26
2. 104 dt. 09.12.
2020
22, 25, 29
NDPS Act
Sehna Undertrial
3. 389 dt.
03.09.2022
52-A
Prisons
Act, 120-B
IPC
City Barnala Undertrial
4. 258
dt.10.06.2022
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Barnala Undertrial
MANPREET SINGH-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 482 dt.
30.10.2022
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Barnala Convicted
RAVINDER SINGH @ BINDA-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 332 dt.
16.10.2021
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Faridkot Undertrial
2. 72 dt.
02.03.2024
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Barnala Undertrial
AMAN SINGLA-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 578 dt.
17.12.2023
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Barnala Undertrial
2. 214 dt.
14.09.2020
52-A
Prisons
Act
Sadar Nabha Convicted
3. 283 dt.
26.06.2023
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Barnala Convicted
VARINDER KUMAR-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 366 dt.
01.08.2023
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Barnala Undertrial
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
27
LOVEPREET SINGH @ LAVI-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 464 dt.
30.09.2023
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Barnala Undertrial
2. 572 dt.
16.12.2023
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Barnala Undertrial
3. 38 dt.
16.02.2024
52-A
Prisons
Act
Sadar Mansa Undertrial
4. 17 dt.
22.01.2021
52-A
Prisons
Act
City Faridkot Undertrial
BITTU RAM-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 77 dt. 2021 52-A
Prisons
Act
Cantt.
Bhatinda
Undertrial
2. 43 dt.
12.09.2019
21 & 29 of
NDPS Act
City Barnala Undertrial
SATVEER SINGH @ SATTI-PETITIONER
Sr.
No.
FIR number
and Date
Under
Section
Police
Station
Status
1. 114 dt.
14.04.2021
52-A
Prisons
Act
Sadar Mansa Undertrial
(iv) above all, some of the petitioners were arrested from different
parts of the country i.e. West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab,
Rajasthan and New Delhi which is a pointer to the fact that prima
facie, it is a big racket involved in manufacturing/supplying/selling/
transporting of illegal drugs with a deep rooted conspiracy.
CRM-M-51040-2024 (O&M) &
other connected cases
28
In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to record the twin-
test satisfaction in terms of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act in favour of the
petitioner(s).
(19) A fortiori, learned State counsel has raised an apprehension that in
the alleged crime, five more accused i.e., Raminder Singh @ Ravi; Manak Singh
Rathore; Gourav Verma; Sourav Verma and Vishal Kumar are yet to be arrested;
and in case petitioner(s) is/are released on bail, there is every likelihood that they
would evade the process of law and shall hamper the fair trial.
(20) Consequently, there is no option, except to dismiss all the petition(s)
‘at this stage’.
(21) Ordered accordingly.
(22) Interim order(s), in respective case(s), extended from time to time,
shall come to an end, automatically.
(23) However, keeping in view the custody of petitioner(s), learned
Special Court is requested to proceed in the matter expeditiously and to avoid
unwarranted adjournment(s) to either of the parties.
(24) The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion
on merits of the present case in any manner.
Pending criminal misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed off.
03.05.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
SN JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....