Accused Entitled to Bail as No Recovery Effected from Him: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Act Case

In a significant judgement delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Justice Anoop Chitkara granted bail to Gurpreet Singh, the petitioner in the case CRM-M-49742-2022, under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in connection with an FIR under Sections 22(C) and 27-A/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The headline-grabbing observation by the court was, “Accused Entitled to Bail as No Recovery Effected from Him.”

The central legal point in this case was the grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving the NDPS Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of actual possession and recovery of contraband in determining bail applications under the NDPS Act.

The petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, was implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused in the FIR filed for the recovery of Tramadol tablets. The prosecution’s case relied on the disclosure statements and recovery of contraband from a car, though not directly from the petitioner. The issue was whether the petitioner, not found in possession of the contraband and already granted interim bail, should be granted regular bail.

Possession and Recovery: Justice Chitkara noted that there was no recovery effected from the petitioner himself, drawing attention to a similar precedent set in the Shince Babu vs. State of Kerala case.

Interim Bail and Conduct: The court considered the petitioner’s conduct during the interim bail period and his regular appearance before the trial court.

Comparison with Co-accused: Reference was made to the co-accused, Manpreet Singh, who had been granted regular bail, suggesting a parity in judicial approach.

Duration of Custody: The court took into account the duration for which the petitioner had already been in custody.

Imposition of Conditions: The court imposed specific conditions on the grant of bail, including surrendering weapons and restricting mobile phone usage to one prepaid SIM, to ensure compliance and mitigate risks.

Based on these assessments, the court granted bail to the petitioner, underlining that there were no grounds to dismiss the petition, given the absence of direct recovery from the petitioner and considering the entirety of the circumstances.

Date of Decision: 03.04.2024.

Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Haryana,