“Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its recent judgment dated July 30, 2024, denied bail to Amarjeet, an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The decision, delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, underscores the weight given to an accused’s criminal antecedents in bail considerations, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like those under the NDPS Act.

The FIR against Amarjeet was registered following the arrest of Akbar @ Golu, Ravinder @ Ravi, and Dhruv Kumar @ Alok, who were found in possession of 400 grams of heroin. During interrogation, the arrested individuals disclosed that Amarjeet had financed their drug procurement operation, paying them Rs.2.5 lakhs to obtain heroin from a contact in Gurgaon. Amarjeet was subsequently arrested but no direct recovery of narcotics was made from him.

Justice Bedi highlighted Amarjeet’s extensive criminal history, noting multiple pending cases against him under the NDPS Act, and several convictions under the Excise Act. “It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the investigating agency,” the judgment noted, emphasizing the improbability of false implications in numerous independent cases.

The court referenced multiple precedents to illustrate its stance. In State of Haryana vs. Samarth Kumar, the Supreme Court held that being named in a co-accused’s disclosure statement does not warrant anticipatory bail. Similarly, in Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, it was reiterated that multiple FIRs over time demonstrate a pattern of criminal behavior, which affects bail eligibility under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Justice Bedi also pointed out that the petitioner’s bail was previously denied as recently as January 29, 2024, with no new circumstances to warrant a different decision now. The consistency in the court’s approach underscores the legal principle that habitual offenders, especially under the NDPS Act, face stringent scrutiny and are generally not entitled to bail based on mere disclosure statements by co-accused without additional corroborative evidence.

Justice Bedi remarked, “When there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act—that he had not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence—cannot be satisfied.”

The High Court’s decision to deny bail to Amarjeet reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding stringent bail provisions under the NDPS Act, particularly for repeat offenders. This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the importance of an accused’s criminal record in judicial determinations, ensuring that those with a history of criminal activity face appropriate legal consequences.

Date of Decision: July 30, 2024

Amarjeet vs. State of Haryana