Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

High Court Grants Bail, Imposes Stringent Conditions in NDPS Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, granted bail to the petitioner, Kulwinder Singh, who was charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), for the possession of intoxicant tablets. The judgement, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara on 21st July 2023, garnered attention for the unprecedented conditions imposed on the accused to secure bail.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody for more than two years and seven months. Considering these factors and following the principles laid down in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022], the court found the petitioner eligible for bail.

The judgement emphasized the need to balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial, while also ensuring the safety of society. In line with the ruling in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], the court imposed restrictive conditions to minimize reliance on traditional sureties and considered alternative options.

The bail conditions, as laid out in the judgement, were unprecedented and aimed to ensure the petitioner’s compliance with the law. Notably, the court ordered the petitioner to maintain only one mobile number linked to their Aadhar card and share its location whenever required. The court also directed the petitioner to surrender all weapons and arms license within fifteen days of release.

In addition to these conditions, the court referred to the case of Madhu Tanwar and Anr. V. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], where it was observed that bail conditions should be proportional to their purpose and should not deprive the accused of their rights and liberties.

The  court’s ruling received praise for its progressive approach to bail conditions and its recognition of advancements in technology and identification techniques. The judgement cited the case of Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the need for bail conditions to have a nexus to their purpose.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, expressed satisfaction with the bail granted and praised the court’s balanced approach. On the other hand, Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab, who represented the State, acknowledged the court’s authority to impose such conditions, given the nature of the case.

Date of Decision: 21.07.2023                                          

Kulwinder Singh    vs State of  Punjab    

Latest Legal News