Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR under Sections 22/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil J., strictly noted that there has been a flood of NDPS litigations, “Wherein either noncommercial quantity of Heroin or any other intoxicating salt like Etizolam, Alprazolam, etc. people are being nominated as accused in the manner where recovery has not been effected from one but after obtaining disclosure statement various other persons are nominated thereafter as accused to increase the number of apprehended persons in the State” The Court stated that it cannot be a mute spectator and directed the State to respond to the assertions made by the petitioner by filing an affidavit.
Background
The petitioner stated that the police recovered intoxicant tablets weighing 8.280 gms etizolam which allegedly fell within the ambit of commercial quantity. The petitioner was named in the FIR on the disclosure statement of co-accused. It was asserted that each strip amounting to Rs 30 consisting of 15 tablets of Etizolam and the total cost of 90 tablets weighing 8.280 gms as had been recovered in the instant case, was not more than Rs 100. Further, the petitioner submitted that it had become the modus operandi for the State Government to create its own figures to alure the voters with an eye on ensuing assembly elections under the garb of slogan – “Yudh Nasheyan Virudh” given by the Chief Minister of the State
The petitioner contended that he was willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer.
Per contra, the respondent argued that the recovery had been affected from the conscious possession of the co-accused and on whose disclosure statement, the name of the petitioner was nominated as an accused. However, he could not deny the fact regarding the cost of the contraband as well as antecedents of the petitioner that he was never involved in any other case as per record.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that it cannot sit idle as a mute spectator being a guardian of the Constitution, against the fact that the quantity of the contraband is commercial in nature, but the cost part of the alleged contraband and the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner do need to be taken into consideration. Further, the Court stated that if the administration within the State of Punjab fails to provide a safe environment to its citizens, the Court can suo moto step in and direct the State to take effective measures to create a congenial environment.
Mentioning that there was flood of multiple cases on the same pattern for the last one month, the Court viewed that assertions of the petitioners could not be ignored The Court directed for the petitioner’s release on interim anticipatory bail. Further, the Court asked him to join the investigation and report to the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week to furnish personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. Additionally, the Court ordered the petitioner to abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS.
[Manjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4733, decided on 23-7-2025.]
*Interim order by Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Gurbir Singh Dhillon, Advocate
For the Private Respondents: Jastej Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab