Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a regular bail application filed by an accused for an FIR registered against him under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., rejected the application holding that since the accused was arrested with a commercial quantity of the contraband, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply to him as there was nothing on record to show that he did not commit the subject offence or would not commit similar offences if he was released on bail.
Background
In 2023, based on suspicion, the accused was apprehended by the police party when he was sitting under a street light and had a transparent plastic polythene bag. His physical search and search of the said polythene bag led to the recovery of 480 tablets of Alprazolam and 1800 tablets of Lomotil. Since the accused could not produce any license or permit to keep in his possession the recovered drugs, he was arrested on the spot. After the completion of the necessary investigation, the FIR was filed against him. He had previously moved an application for regular bail before the Trial Court, but the same was dismissed.
Aggrieved, he filed the present application.
Analysis
The Court noted that the FSL report revealed that the total weight of the Alprazolam tablets was 29.280 grams, which did not fall under commercial quantity. However, the total weight of Lomotil tablets was 113.40 grams, which not only fell within the ambit of commercial quantity but was also double the threshold quantity.
Regarding the contention that an accused was unlikely to carry contraband in transparent polythene, the Court stated that if an accused claimed that he was falsely implicated on the ground that no sensible person would carry contraband in a transparent bag because such visibility would get him caught and thus, it was against common sense. Then, the same logic must also apply to the police. If the allegation was that the police falsely implicated the accused by planting contraband, it was equally implausible that they would do so using a transparent bag, which would immediately raise doubts about the authenticity of the recovery. If the intention was to fabricate evidence and ensure a strong case, it would be far more logical for the police to use a concealed or opaque bag to avoid any suspicion of false implication.
Therefore, the Court opined that the mere fact that the contraband was found in a transparent bag cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of innocence or police malice. Additionally, the Court stated that it could not, and neither was it supposed to assess the intelligence, prudence, or strategic thinking of the accused to conclude whether he would or would not have carried contraband in a transparent bag. Both scenarios create a paradox as the accused knowingly carrying it or the police falsely planting it are equally vulnerable to speculative reasoning and seem unlikely as an accused carrying contraband openly in a transparent bag defies caution, whereas the police planting evidence in a transparent bag defies strategic thinking. It creates a logical standoff where neither side’s behaviour aligns perfectly with rational expectations.
Hence, the Court stated that on this ground, not even a prima facie inference could be drawn regarding the false implication of the accused.
Since the accused was apprehended with a commercial quantity of the contraband, the Court held that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly apply to him as there was nothing on record to show that he did not commit the subject offence or would not commit similar offences, if he was released on bail. Additionally, the trial was pending, and there was nothing on record to suggest that there would be any undue delay in the conclusion of the same.
Considering the aforesaid discussion, the gravity of the allegations, the quantity of alleged contraband recovered from him, the quantum of the sentence that the conviction may entail, and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the accused did not deserve to be granted the concession of regular bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
[Dharminder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2542, decided on 16-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate
For the respondent: Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab