Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

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

Similar News