Such Approach Will Create a Barbaric Situation Wherein Innocent Persons Would Be Made Scapegoats: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criticizes Target-Based Anti-Drug Drive While Granting Bail

Essence of the anti-drug drive would be lost in the urge of achieving a commendable ACR - Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the accused in an NDPS case involving recovery of 100 grams of heroin and 2400 Alprazolam tablets. The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while granting bail, raised strong concerns about procedural lapses in compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and took judicial notice of the Punjab Police's recent strategy of assigning arrest "targets" in the ongoing anti-drug drive. The Court held that "no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail his right for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
The case arose from an FIR registered on 22.04.2024 at Police Station Special Task Force, SAS Nagar, against Amrik Singh. According to the police, during a routine checking at the outer side of Village Bagehar, the accused was intercepted, and a search of his car resulted in the recovery of 100 grams of heroin and 2400 Alprazolam tablets. The prosecution alleged that after following the mandatory procedures, including serving a notice under Section 50 NDPS Act, the recovery was effected.
The petitioner, however, maintained that he was falsely implicated. His counsel argued that "no recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner" and that the recovery of the tablets was further vitiated as "no batch number was visible on the strips," as confirmed by the FSL report dated 30.06.2024.
The petitioner also contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with properly, as the "search of the vehicle was conducted first and later the dissent statement of the petitioner was recorded," which amounted to a violation of the procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court.
The core legal question before the Court was whether the procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were violated, and whether, despite the recovery, the petitioner was entitled to bail considering the alleged recovery involved a non-commercial quantity.
The Court noted, "Prima facie violation noted but court refrains from making conclusive opinion on merits." It referred to State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172, where the Supreme Court emphasized, "The search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate would impart much more authenticity and creditworthiness to the search and seizure proceedings."

The Court highlighted that the alleged recovery involved 100 grams of heroin, which falls under the category of non-commercial quantity and called for a cautious approach. The Court remarked, "Pre-trial detention in such cases needs cautious approach due to Article 21 rights and delay in trial progress."
The Court further observed that despite charges being framed on 30.10.2024, "out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, meaning thereby, conclusion of trial shall take considerable time."
The Court heavily relied on the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 and cited Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2018) 2 RCR (Criminal) 131, observing that, "The grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail is an exception."
Justice Moudgil noted, "This Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
A significant feature of this judgment was the Court taking judicial notice of a newspaper article, wherein the DGP Punjab had declared that “SSPs and SHOs will be assigned targets in the ongoing drive against drug on the basis of which their performance will be assessed.” The Court condemned this policy and remarked, "This incremental approach by law enforcement authorities can be likened to a bounty, which rather than curbing the drug trade, may inadvertently facilitate its expansion at an accelerated rate due to the focus on meeting quantified targets."
Justice Moudgil went further to say, "Such approach will create a barbaric situation wherein the innocent person would be made a scapegoat to achieve one’s target," and warned that such quantified assessments "would definitely lead to misusing of powers by the police authority and the essence of the anti-drug drive would be lost in the urge of achieving a commendable ACR."
On the argument of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the Court noted, "Pendency of other cases alone cannot be a ground for denial of bail unless evidence in the present case independently supports such denial." The Court followed its own precedent in Baljinder Singh alias Rock v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-25914-2022, holding that, "strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail indefinitely."
The Court strongly criticized the police's repeated justification for non-joining of independent public witnesses during search operations, stating, "Such concocted version of the prosecution raises suspect in the mind of the court and it is highly unacceptable that every now and then, the police authority fails to convince the passer-by to join as independent witnesses which certainly raises a doubt on the credibility of the police authority."
The Court granted bail to the petitioner with a strong reminder to the State, "It is the need of the hour for the State to draft a holistic approach where the police officials and the local community build a fiduciary relationship and move ahead as a team to vanish the web of drug menace and the State should often hold seminars to imbibe in the police officials the quality of selfless work rather than merely working for increments."
Justice Moudgil concluded by holding that, "The present petition is hereby allowed," while cautioning that the observations made should not be construed as findings on the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: 18/03/2025