Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 29.10.2025

Pronounced on: 30.10.2025 Gurpreet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Najar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, A.A.G., Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 15.08.2024 Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra 15, 18 of NDPS Act (Section 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act added later on) 1.

The 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.

2.

Per paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, however per custody certificate, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedent: Sr. No.

FIR No.

Dated Offence Police Station 1.

06.08.2024 18/61/85 of NDPS Act Sadar Thanesar 3.

The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 15-08-2024, based on prior information, the Police seized 70 kgs of poppy husk and 1 kg of opium from the possession of co-accused Ajay Kumar and Ajay, both of whom were in the truck from where the contraband was recovered. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4.

During custodial interrogation, the co-accused named the petitioner as the seller of the contraband; based on this, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused by incorporating S. 29 of NDPS Act.

5.

The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody. 6.

The 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.

7.

The 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 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. 8.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING:

9.

As per paragraph 9-A of the reply, the contraband is 1 kg opium and 70 kgs poppy husk.

10.

Dealing in 1 kg of opium in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name "Opium"

Quantity detained 1 Kg Punishable U/s S.18(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Intermediate Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate 40.00% Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No.

Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Opium Other non-proprietary name ******

Chemical Name And any preparation containing opium Small Quantity < 25 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 0.025 Kg) Commercial Quantity > 2500 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 2.5 Kg) Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.18 & S.2(xv) NDPS Act, S.O.821(E) 11/14/1985 Sr. No.

S.2(xv) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) ****** Other non-proprietary name ****** S.2(xv) "opium" means- (a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and (b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine; S.2 (xvii) "opium poppy" means- (a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and (b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act;

Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses (v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the percentages in the case of liquid preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage: Chemical Name Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.

11.

Dealing in 70 kgs poppy husk in contravention of the NDPS Act, 1985, constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications:

Substance Name Poppy straw Quantity detained 70 Kg Punishable U/s S.15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 Quantity type Commercial Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate 140.00% Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date Expert Committee Report dated 24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001 Sr. No.

Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Poppy straw Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name ****** Small Quantity < 1000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 1 Kg) Commercial Quantity > 50000 Gram (i.e. equivalent to 50 Kg) Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.15 & S.2(xviii) NDPS Act, S.O.821(E) 11/14/1985 Sr. No.

S.2(xviii) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) ****** Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name S.2(xviii) "poppy straw" means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom; S.

2(viiib)] "illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means- (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant;

(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;

(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; S.2 (xvii) "opium poppy" means- (a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and (b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act;

S2. (xviii) "poppy straw" means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom; 12.

The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 13.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portion of reply which reads as follows:

"B)The evidence based on which the petitioner arraigned as an accusedThe name of petitioner/accused was disclosed by the co-accused, namely, Ajay Kumar son of Vaijnath and petitioner/accused also admitted his crime by making his disclosure statement." 14.

Thus, the evidence collected so far consists of disclosure statements. Such statements can be proven subject to the mandatory restrictions imposed in S. 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ S. 23 of BSA, 2023. 15.

In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the majority view of a three-member bench holds as follows:

We answer the reference by stating:

(i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.

(ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.

16.

The status report filed by the police reveals that the investigator arraigned the petitioner as an accused based on the disclosure statement of the main accused, from whose possession the investigator had recovered the contraband. No other evidence is collected at this stage to connect the petitioner with the main accused. Thus, there is no justification to deny bail. Consequently, the petitioner has satisfied the first rider of section 37 of the NDPS Act. Regarding the second rider of S. 37, this court will put very stringent conditions in this order to ensure that the petitioner does not repeat the offense. 17.

Additionally, per the custody certificate dated 28.10.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is 01 year, 02 months and 05 days. 18.

The 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.

19.

The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases where the quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount seized in the current FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail after prolonged custody, as demonstrated by the following judicial precedent.

20.

In Shambhulal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 23-04-2024, SLP (Crl) 16671-2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of 60 kgs of poppy husk/straw (contraband article) from him and prior to this incident, he has three criminal antecedents relating to the NDPS Act registered in the year 2019, 2021 & 2022. The third bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 1 year and 8 months in jail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State. Considering the fact that the contraband article is a poppy straw although he has three criminal antecedents but since he has been in jail for the last 1 year and 8 months, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner.

21.

In Ratnaram v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10-01-2025, SLP (Crl) 16398-2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023

The petitioner is an accused in a case bearing FIR No.44/2022 registered with Police Station Barmer Rural, District Barmer, Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that there is a recovery of 4 plastic bags containing 79 kg of poppy straw/husk (contraband article) from the vehicle which was seen driving by the petitioner. The second bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court. He has already undergone about 2 years and 10 months in jail. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State. 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.

22.

Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the case's merits, and considering the petitioner's pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs, 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. 23.

Given the 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, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 25,000.

24.

Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 25,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. 25.

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

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 26.

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

27.

The 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 Court.

28.

Given 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 society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 29.

The 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." 30.

In 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."

31.

The 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. 32.

This 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 concerned 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.

33.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 34.

It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above. 35.

In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished." 36.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.10.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.