Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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