Mangi Lal Dheru v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

03.07.2025 Dabwali Sadar, Police District Dabwali 17B of NDPS Act

¶1The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are taken from the translated copy of FIR (Annexure P-1). On 03.07.2025 based on secret information, the Police seized 557 grams opium from a Scorpio car, in which co-accused Arvind Kumar and Narendra Kumar were travelling. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and BNSS 2023.

¶4During custodial interrogation, the above said main accused confessed before the Police officer that they had purchased the drugs from the petitioner and another co-accused named Sandeep Kumar. Based on such confession before the police, the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Apprehending arrest, he filed for anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which denied him bail. Feeling aggrieved, he has invoked the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 BNSS, 2023.

¶5The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner

and their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

¶6The State's counsel opposes the bail. REASONING:

¶7As per paragraph 2 of the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, while rejecting the bail of petitioner, the name of the contraband is opium and its weight is 557 grams grams, and it constitutes an offense under the following provisions and notifications: Substance Name "Opium" Quantity detained 557 Gram Quantity type Intermediate Drug Quantity in % to upper limit of Intermediate

22.28%

Drug's Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report Notification No. & date Expert Committee Report dated

24.03.1995 & 23.08.2001 (Small and Commercial) Punishable U/s S.18(b) of NDPS Act, 1985

Specified as small & Commercial in S.2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.O.1055(E) 10/19/2001

Sr. No. Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) Opium Other non-proprietary name ******

Chemical Name And any preparation containing opium Small Quantity < 25 Gram Commercial Quantity > 2500 Gram Declared as punishable under NDPS Act and as per schedule defined in S.2(xi) & 2(xxiii) NDPS Act, 1985 Notification No. & dated S.18 & S.2(xv) NDPS Act, S.O.821(E) 11/14/1985 Sr. No. S.2(xv) Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) ****** Other non-proprietary name ****** Chemical Name S.2(xv) "opium" means—

(a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and

(b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine; S.2 (xvii) "opium poppy" means—

(a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and

(b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act;

Explanation.-- For the purposes of clauses (v) (vi), (xv) and (xvi) the

preparations shall be calculated on the basis that a preparation containing one per cent. of a substance means a preparation in which one gram of substance, if solid, or one mililitre of substance, if liquid, is contained in every one hundred mililitre of the preparation and so on in proportion for any greater or less percentage:

Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the developments in the field of methods of calculating percentages in liquid preparations prescribed, by rules, any other basis which it may deem appropriate for such calculation.

¶8The quantity of contraband involved in this case is not commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the present case.

¶9Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as greater than the quantity specified in the schedule. Section 2 (xxiii-a) defines a small quantity as a quantity less than the quantity specified in the table of the NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, generally called an intermediate quantity. All sections in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. The commercial quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than commercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes.

¶10In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, SLP (Crl). 2364-2025, decided on 09-07-2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, The petitioner before this Court is seeking an anticipatory bail, which was declined by the High Court by an order dated 16.01.2025. The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Section 15B of the NDPS Act and is facing investigation. Vide order dated 09.04.2025, interim protection was granted to the petitioner, subject to cooperation in the investigation.

Having considered the entire facts of the matter and the statement made by Ms. Nupur Kumar, learned counsel for the State, we do not think that this is a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Hence, the order dated 09.04.2025 is made absolute.

¶11Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.

¶12The evidence collected might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or even to frame the charges; however, it is insufficient for the purpose of denying bail.

¶13Given the penal provisions invoked, the legal admissibility of evidence collected against the petitioner, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions mentioned in this order.

¶14Given the above, without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶15Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶16While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶17The bail order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶18The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27

of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶19The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶20Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, detection squad and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of the uploading of this order on the official webpage of this Court and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided it is otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

¶21In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶22In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP

(Crl) 12225-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail

granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences."

¶23This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.

¶24Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶25A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶26Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

21.08.2025 anju rani

No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 04.08.2025 Pronounced on: 21.08.2025 Mangi Lal Dheru ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. ****