In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant judgment regarding the eligibility of individuals facing multiple drug-related cases for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court’s decision emphasizes stringent conditions for bail in such cases and the status of habitual offenders in the eyes of the law. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi presided over the case and articulated that individuals with multiple drug-related cases pending against them find it challenging to meet the stringent conditions required for bail under the NDPS Act. The court further highlighted that even under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), habitual offenders are not entitled to bail, considering their criminal history.
The court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation in such cases, despite the accused’s cooperation with earlier stages of the investigation. This ruling sheds light on the importance of thorough investigations and the gravity of drug-related offenses. Section 37 of the NDPS Act outlines specific conditions that must be satisfied before a person accused in a drug-related case can be granted bail. Notably, it mandates that the Public Prosecutor must have an opportunity to oppose the release of the accused. The court must also be convinced that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offense and will not commit any further offenses while on bail.
In this particular case, the High Court concluded that when an accused individual already faces multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) over an extended period, it becomes practically impossible to meet the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The ruling came in response to an anticipatory bail plea filed by an individual wanted by the police in connection with a case involving the recovery of 12,000 Alprazolam tablets from a co-accused, who claimed to have purchased the tablets from the petitioner. The petitioner’s argument that the co-accused’s statement had limited evidentiary value was countered by the police, who labeled the petitioner as a “habitual offender” with another NDPS Act case registered against him.
The court dismissed the plea to protect the petitioner from arrest, citing that the conditions specified in Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not be met. It also emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation to gather evidence and conclude the investigation effectively. Advocate Mohd. Uzair represented the petitioner in this case, while Assistant Advocate General Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar represented the State of Haryana. This ruling underscores the seriousness with which the courts approach drug-related offenses and the stringent conditions that must be satisfied for bail in such cases.
Name: Tanvi Bansal
Semester: 3rd, College: UILS, PU, As intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments