-
by sayum
28 July 2026 1:44 PM
In a landmark judgment on the 26th of February 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, firmly rejected a bail petition in a case involving narcotics possession under the NDPS Act.
The judgment revolved around a regular bail plea under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the provisions of Sections 35 and 37 of the NDPS Act.
Petitioner Gautam Sehgal, a chemist, was accused of having unaccounted intoxicant capsules and tablets. The FIR specified the seizure of red and brown capsules, along with white tablets, without valid documentation.
Severity of Drug Menace: The court highlighted the extensive drug trafficking issue in Punjab, acknowledging its devastating effects on youth and the larger society.
Petitioner’s Alleged Role: The absence of valid prescriptions or bills for the seized narcotics pointed towards Sehgal’s involvement in illicit drug activities.
Presumption of Culpability: According to Section 35 of the NDPS Act, the court presumed a culpable mental state due to the lack of a convincing explanation from Sehgal.
Criteria for Bail: Referencing Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the judgment underlined that bail is not merited unless there are reasonable grounds to believe in the accused’s innocence.
Ongoing Investigation: The decision to deny bail was also influenced by the ongoing investigation and the pending Forensic Science Laboratory report.
Decision The court, underscoring the need for a stringent approach against drug traffickers, dismissed Sehgal’s bail application, citing the case’s serious nature and the ongoing investigation.
Date of Decision: 26.02.2024
Gautam Sehgal Versus State of Punjab
