MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Accused Running Drug Racket From Jail - Rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act Not Apply: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail on Less Than Commercial Quantity of Narcotics

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 22, 2024, Justice Anoop Chitkara has granted bail to the petitioner, Jagseer Singh, involved in a narcotics case under less than commercial quantity stipulations. The court emphasized that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which prescribes stringent conditions for bail, are not applicable when the narcotics seized are below the commercial quantity.

The case revolved around an FIR registered in Fazilka, Punjab, against several individuals including the petitioner, accused of operating a drug racket from inside a jail. Charges were levied under various sections of the NDPS Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Prison Act. The pivotal legal issue was whether the seized quantity of narcotics, being less than commercial, could exempt the petitioner from the harsh conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are otherwise mandatory for commercial quantities.

Legal Context: The court noted that the quantity involved was an intermediate quantity, which does not attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This section is only invoked for commercial quantities, necessitating a stricter scrutiny for bail.

Precedents and Legal Interpretations: Justice Chitkara referred to multiple Supreme Court rulings that have shaped the legal landscape regarding bail. These include landmark judgments which assert the discretion of courts in matters of bail based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the offence.

Consideration of Petitioner's Rights: The court considered the petitioner's rights, emphasizing that the absence of prior criminal records and the non-commercial quantity of the narcotics favor a bail grant to avoid "irreversible injustice".

Imposition of Conditions: Stringent conditions were imposed on the grant of bail to ensure that the petitioner does not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. These include the limitation of the petitioner to one mobile number, compliance with all court appearances, and strict monitoring mechanisms.

Decision: The court granted bail to Jagseer Singh, subject to several stringent conditions aimed at ensuring his compliance with the law and preventing any interference with the ongoing investigation and judicial processes.

Date of Decision: 22.04.2024

Jagseer Singh v. State of Punjab

Latest Legal News