Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

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    

Similar News