No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Bail Plea in NDPS Act Case: 'Seriousness of Charges' and 'Risk of Tampering' Cited in Dismissal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger, turned down a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The judgment, delivered on 14th July 2023, pertained to the case of Jagdish Chand, who sought regular bail in connection with FIR No.159 dated 09.12.2021, concerning the recovery of 150 kgs. of poppy pods classified as "Commercial Quantity" at Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda.

Justice Bunger emphasized the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner and stated, "The recovery of 150 kgs. of poppy pods falls under the 'Commercial Quantity' category, invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court cannot find reasonable grounds for believing in the petitioner's innocence or the likelihood of him not committing any NDPS Act offense while on bail."

The petitioner contended false implication, citing a land dispute and a previous case lodged by his son against certain police officials. However, the court ruled that these claims would be subject to examination during the trial and were insufficient to establish prima facie innocence for granting bail.

Justice Bunger addressed concerns of tampering with evidence and the risk of the petitioner absconding, stating, "Given the gravity of the charges, there is a possibility that the petitioner might influence prosecution witnesses or even commit further offenses if released on bail."

The court clarified that its decision was not an expression of opinion on the case's merits and that the trial would proceed independently, unaffected by the bail application's observations.

In reaching its conclusion, the judgment referred to the crucial case of Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul (2009), reiterating the stringent criteria for granting bail under the NDPS Act. This ruling has broader implications for future cases involving serious offenses under the Act, highlighting the court's commitment to upholding the sanctity of the legal process in such matters.

Date of Decision: 14th July 2023

JAGDISH CHAND   vs STATE OF PUNJAB

Latest Legal News