Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation

Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail, Emphasizes Proportionate Conditions in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to Paramjit Kaur, also known as Kali, in a case related to violation of Section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The court emphasized the importance of proportionate conditions while granting bail, ensuring a balance between the accused’s liberty and the necessity of a fair trial.

Highlighting the court’s reasoning, the judgment stated, “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them.” The court further quoted previous cases to emphasize that bail conditions should not result in the deprivation of rights and liberties.

The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that the quantity of contraband involved was less than the commercial threshold, rendering the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. Considering this argument, the court observed that the quantity allegedly involved in the case was not of a commercial nature, thereby excluding the rigorous conditions prescribed under Section 37.

However, the court took into account the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, which included two previous FIRs. Despite the criminal history, the court, referring to precedents, opined that the petitioner’s previous record should not be the sole factor for denying bail at this stage.

To ensure the safety of society and prevent the repetition of the offense, the court imposed several conditions for granting bail. These conditions include furnishing personal and surety bonds, surrendering weapons, providing identification details, and restricting the petitioner to a single mobile number linked to their Aadhaar card.

In addition, the judgment emphasized that the petitioner should not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The court further directed the petitioner to procure a smartphone with GPS enabled, share location information when required by the investigating officer, and surrender all weapons within fifteen days of release.

While granting bail, the court emphasized that the conditions imposed aim to give the petitioner an opportunity to reform and prevent the repetition of the offense. The judgment also made it clear that the observations made in the order should not be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case by the trial court.

This landmark judgment sets a precedent for proportionate and balanced bail conditions in NDPS cases, ensuring the rights of the accused while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

Quote from the Judgment: “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them.”

Decided on: 06.07.2023                                               

Paramjit Kaur @ Kali  vs State of  Punjab         

Similar News