Manpreet Singh Alias Goga v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/ons 156 14.11.2021 Bassi Pathana, District 22-C, 61, 85 of NDPS Act (Sec!on Fatehgarh Sahib 29 of NDPS Act added later on)

¶1The pe!!oner incarcerated in the FIR cap!oned above had come up before this Court under Sec!on 483 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2As per Note-II of the bail applica!on and as per para 9 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta/on

¶117 21.02.2017 22 of NDPS Act Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib

¶291 15.04.2019 21 of NDPS Act Mandi Gobindgarh

¶320 28.02.2021 21-A, 29 of NDPS Act Amloh

¶3The facts and allega!ons are taken from the status report filed by the State. On Nov 14, 2021, based on prior informa!on, the Police seized 1220 loose tablets from the pe!!oner's possession.

¶4The The Inves!gator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC 1972.

¶5The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family. order/judgment. 1

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to para 4 of the bail pe!!on, which reads as follows: "4. That as per the alleged story of prosecu"on secret informa"on received against pe""oner and further alleged recovery is shown 1220 Loose Tablets Alprazolam. (That as per FSL each tablet weighted 121 mg thus total weight comes to 147.62 Grams Alprazolam). That commercial quan"ty is more than 100 grams, Entry 178 of Schedule."

¶8The quan!ty allegedly involved in this case is primafacie commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The pe!!oner must sa!sfy the twin condi!ons put in place by the Legislature under Sec!on 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶9Given this, the criminal antecedents are also not legal grounds for denying the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage.

¶10However, the pe!!oner is en!tled to bail because Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents: 1) In Junaid Alam v. State of UIarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) 7708-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [2]. It is pointed out that the pe!!oner has been in custody for last more than 18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is then submiIed that only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecu!on witnesses have been examined and they have not said anything to connect the pe!!oner with the crime. [3]. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the concerned Contraband are medicinal drugs but they are sold for profit. Moreover, it is of commercial quan!ty. [4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the prohibited medicines (SYP Codectus 100 BoIles (100 Ml each), Cap Pyeevon Spas Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules, Spasonof NF 960 capsules, Capsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144, Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules, Alprasafe Table 600 Tablets, Pyeevon Spas Plus 32 Capsules). [5]. Having considered the above and the fact that the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date, we are of the view that the pe!!oner – Junaid Alam deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail condi!ons be imposed by the trial court.

¶11In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent isJYOTI order/judgment. 2 a siMng Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquiIal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdic!on of the Court etc.

¶12In Jogindro Bai v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-51218-2024, decided on 29.11.2024, Neutral Cita!on No. 2024:PHHC:162096, this Court observed, [17]. Adjudica!ng a bail pe!!on of an accused with a prior criminal record places a significant and exac!ng responsibility on courts to exercise judicial discre!on in a manner that is both reasoned balanced to consider the countervailing impacts on the freedom of an accused and that of society and free from arbitrariness, as arbitrariness is an!the!cal to the rule of law. As a natural corollary, considera!on of an accused's criminal history should be limited to cases where convic!ons have been secured, including those resul!ng in suspended sentences, and all pending First Informa!on Reports (FIRs) in which the pe!!oner is formally arraigned as an accused. However, cases that culminated in acquiIals, discharges, quashed FIRs, withdrawals of prosecu!on, or the filing of closure reports by the inves!ga!ve authori!es must be excluded. [18]. Although the legal system upholds the principle that crime, not the individual, should be condemned, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles, and a recidivist oOen operates on precarious ground, where the weight of a significant criminal record creates an increasingly challenging terrain. Nonetheless, where the offense for which bail is sought is minor, such that arrest is generally unwarranted, or bail would ordinarily be inevitable, courts must not deny bail solely as a puni!ve measure intended to serve as a pre-trial deterrent. Such an approach contravenes the judiciary's obliga!on to uphold the founda!onal principles of jus!ce and equity in bail proceedings. Another reason that dis-en!tles for bail is the criminal antecedents. Considering the bail pe!!on of an accused with a criminal history throws an onerous responsibility upon the courts to act judiciously and reasonably because arbitrariness is the an!thesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informa!on Reports, wherein the bail pe!!oner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecu!on resul!ng in acquiIal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR, the prosecu!on stands withdrawn, or the prosecu!on filed a closure report, cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not criminal, for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and the graver the criminal history, the slushier the puddles. If the pe!!oner is granted bail, he will likely re-indulge in the crime.

¶13Given the pe!!oner's custody, even the past criminal antecedents will not come in the pe!!oner's way of geMng out on bail. order/judgment. 3

¶14The prolonged incarcera!on, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Ar!cle 21 of the Cons!tu!on and in such a situa!on, the condi!onal liberty must override the statutory embargo created under 1Sec!on 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act .

¶15In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the appellant has been under incarcera!on for more than one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, though, it is submiIed by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable length of !me. There is no antecedent involving the appellant. [6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted bail, subject to the condi!ons that may be imposed by the Trial Court.

¶16Given the above, the pe!!oner's pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial precedents men!oned above; the pe!!oner is en!tled to bail under Ar!cle 14 of the Cons!tu!on of India.

¶17As per the custody cer!ficate dated 07.01.2025, the pe!!oner's custody in this FIR is of two years, eight months and ten days. Given the drugs were medicines that aIracted viola!on of S. 22 of NDPS Act, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus!fiability for further pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage.

¶18Without commen!ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men!oned above, the pe!!oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the !me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶19Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 1 Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023 order/judgment. 4

¶20While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

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

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶21This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶22The pe!!oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oner 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.

¶23Given the background of allega!ons against the pe!!oner, it becomes paramount to protect the detec!on squad, members of society, and incapacita!ng the accused would be one of the primary op!ons un!l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiIal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restric!on 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 sanc!on]. Given the nature of the allega!ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe!!oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni!on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiOeen days of release from prison and inform the Inves!gator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe!!oner shall be en!tled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquiIal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restric!ng firearms would ins!ll confidence in the vic!m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea!ng the offense.

¶24The condi!ons men!oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Pe!!on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail condi!ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor!onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail order/judgment. 5 condi!ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi!ons that would result in the depriva!on of rights and liber!es must be eschewed."

¶25In 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 pe!!oner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the pe!!oner is bound to face the necessary consequences."

¶26This bail is condi#onal, and the founda#onal condi#on is that if the pe##oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an applica#on for cancella#on of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶27Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶28A cer!fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe!!oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aIest it to be a true copy. If the aIes!ng officer wants to verify its authen!city, such an officer can also verify its authen!city and may download and use the downloaded copy for aIes!ng bonds.

¶29Pe//on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

30.01.2025 Jyo/-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.01.2025 Pronounced on: 30.01.2025 Manpreet Singh @ Goga ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the pe!!oner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab. ****