Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High 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