Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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         

Latest Legal News