Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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