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 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 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