Ajaib Singh Alias Matt v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 09.07.2025
Pronounced on: 16.07.2025 Ajaib Singh alias Matt
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. P.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 08.10.2022 Moonak, District 18 of NDPS Act Sangrur 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 8 of the bail application and reply filed by the State, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No.
FIR No.
Date Offenses Police Station 17.05.2005 15 of NDPS Act Khanauri 28.09.2010 15 of NDPS Act Moonak 3.
The facts and allegations are taken from the reply filed by the State. On 08.10.2022, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 3 kg 500 grams opium from the petitioner's possession.
4.
The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
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 State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 8.
As per para 7 of reply, the weight and name of contraband is opium, and it weighed 3 kg 500 grams.
9.
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. 10.
The 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:
11.
In Miku Kumar Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand, SLP (Crl.) No. 148-2025, decided on 07-04-2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 414 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 18(b), 21(c), 22(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act. His bail application was rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 06.12.2024. He has already undergone more than one year and six months in jail. The allegation against the petitioner is that 3 Kgs of opium was recovered from his possession. Office Report dated 04.04.2025 indicates that the respondent - State has not filed appearance despite service of notice.
Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer for bail is allowed. 12.
Per the custody certificate dated 08.07.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 02 years, 08 months and 27 days.
13.
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.
14.
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. However, this order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court's official webpage.
1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023
15.
Given 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. 16.
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) 17.
This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 18.
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.
19.
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 the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
20.
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." 21.
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."
22.
This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner 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, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, then the State shall apply for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be eligible, authorized, and shall have the discretion to cancel this bail.
23.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 24.
A 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.
25.
Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.