POCSO Act | Foundational Facts Establishing Offence Must Be Proved To Trigger Statutory Presumption Under Section 29: Calcutta High Court Expectation Of Higher Price In Future Auctions No Ground To Discard Highest Bid Above Reserve Price; Subsequent Sale Hit By Section 52 TP Act: Allahabad High Court AI May Well Serve As Training Wheels But Entrusting It With Pilot's Seat Would Be Both Imprudent And Dangerous: Bombay High Court Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 138 NI Act Can Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution If Complainant Fails To Serve Notice On Accused: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Section 348 BNSS Witness Recall Plea Is Interlocutory; Inherent Powers Cannot Provide Backdoor Entry Where Section 438(2) Revisional Bar Applies Absent Gross Injustice: Delhi High Court Limitation Period For Appeal Commences From Date Assessee Receives Copy Of ITAT Order, Not Date Of Pronouncement: Bombay High Court Under Section 254(3) Income Tax Act Section 82 CrPC | Failure To Attempt Service At Known Overseas Address Vitiates Proclamation; Setting Aside PO Declaration Does Not Invalidate Arrest Warrants Or Extradition: Delhi High Court Expenditure Incurred By Defaulting Party Cannot Be Equated With Benefit Received Under Section 64 Contract Act: Karnataka High Court Upholds Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Under Section 34 A&C Act Vendor Executing Agreement To Sell Pendente Lite Precluded From Compromising Appeal Prejudicially; Intending Purchasers Entitled To Impleadment Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala Rent Act | Examination Of Co-Landlord Spouse Sufficient To Prove Bona Fide Need Even If Spouse Intending To Occupy Doesn't Testify: High Court Personal Accident Coverage Under Motor Insurance Policy Does Not Extend To Borrower; Exonerates Insurer From Liability: Madras High Court Limitation To Challenge Void Sale Deed Runs From Discovery Of Fraud, Unilateral Material Alteration Vitiates Title: Orissa High Court Interim Status Quo Order Automatically Lapses Upon Dismissal Of Suit, Pendency Of First Appeal Does Not Entitle Injunction Under Order 39 CPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court District Caste Verification Committee Has No Jurisdiction Under Section 4C Karnataka SC/ST Act To Cancel Caste Certificate On Private Third-Party Complaint Absent Validation Request: Karnataka High Court Joint Title Presumes Equal Share Unless Exclusive Consideration Proved By Documented Evidence: Kerala High Court POCSO Act | Delay In Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witnesses Does Not Weaken Sterling Testimony Of Victim: Madras High Court Mandatory Affixation Of Welfare Fund Stamp On Vakalatnama Valid Under List III Entries 23 & 26, Not A Toll On Right To Practice: Telangana High Court Upholds Sections 12 & 12A Of Advocates Welfare Fund Act BSF Personnel Certified Medically Incapacitated Entitled To Disability Pension Despite 'Voluntary Retirement' Label Under Rule 48-A CCS Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court SARFAESI Auction Purchaser Takes Title Free From Subsequent Attachments, Claim Enquiry Confined Only To Property Rights: Kerala High Court Commercial Use, Late-Night Events In Areas Adjacent To Reserved Forest Prohibited To Protect Wildlife Under Forest Conservation Norms: Rajasthan High Court In Composite Negligence, Claimants Free To Recover Entire Compensation From Any Joint Tortfeasor Without Impleading Other Vehicle: Orissa High Court Regular Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction Under Section 190 CrPC To Take Cognizance Against Sitting Or Former Legislators; Special MP/MLA Court Alone Competent: Karnataka High Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Decreed On Fabricated Sale Agreement Bearing Sequential Stamp Papers From Decade-Old Mortgage; Section 340 CrPC Applicable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sole Testimony Of Child Victim Stands On Same Footing As Injured Witness, Defective Investigation No Ground To Discard Credible Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 6 POCSO Act, 376 IPC Once Trial Court Accepts Written Statement Without Objection, It Cannot Recall Order To Strike Off Defence Under Order 8 Rule 1: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Court Fee Refund Under Section 69 Or Section 69-A Of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act If Out-Of-Court Settlement Is Reached After Trial Commences: Madras High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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