Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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