Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in FIR under Sections 21(c), 27-A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel J., mandated Courts to go beyond literal or grammatical reading of the NDPS Act in deciphering its true scope. Considering that the only material available against the petitioner was in the form of disclosure statement of co-accused from whom the contraband and drug money was recovered, the Court found that the requirement of Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act was met with. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner.
Background
Anti-drone police patrolling was being conducted in the government vehicle along with standard investigative equipment near certain villages. While searching the riverbank, the team observed two young men, belonging to the same village, were loitering suspiciously.
Upon noticing the police, one of them discarded a polythene bag into nearby bushes and attempted to retreat. The bag concerned was seized, and it was found that it contained 255 grams packaged heroin. Both the accused were booked under Sections 21(c), 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated in the FIR in question and he had been in custody in other FIRs for the last 2-3 years and no mobile had been recovered from him in the jail. The petitioner further stated that the only material available against him was the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. The respondent strenuously opposed the same contending that the petitioner was accused of being involved in a case pertaining to recovery of 255 grams of heroin and Rs 4,70,000 of drug money.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
Considering that NDPS Act was enacted with the paramount objective of stemming the boom of drug abuse and illicit trafficking, the Court observed that this jurisprudential principle mandated courts to go beyond mere literal or grammatical reading of the text in deciphering the true scope of the enactment. The interpretative endeavor must be a dynamic and teleological one, ensuring that the NDPS Act remains an efficacious instrument in combating the pervasive menace of drug abuse, rather than being rendered sterile by a rigid textual analysis.
Considering that the only material available against the petitioner was in the form of disclosure statement of co-accused from whom the contraband and drug money was recovered, the Court found that the requirement of Section 37(1)(b)(i) of NDPS Act was met with. The Court took into account that the petitioner was in custody for about 2 to 3 years and allowed the petition stating that further detention was not warranted.
Further, the Court stated that the requirement of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) could be met with by mandating the petitioner to submit an affidavit before the Special Judge concerned, NDPS Court on the first day of every month stating that he has not committed any offence after being released on regular bail.
Furthermore, the Court laid down additional conditions to the ones that might be imposed by the Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate concerned on the petitioner. The Court stated that the petitioner should not misuse the liberty granted and not tamper with any evidence. The petitioner shall not be absent on any date before the trial and should not commit any offence while on bail. He should deposit his passport to the Trial Court and should give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of the Police Station concerned and shall not change his cellphone number without prior permission of the Trial Court. The Court stated that the petitioner should not in any manner try to delay the trial and, comply with the mandate of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS with fail.
The Court strictly stated that breach of any condition could result in cancellation of bail at the liberty of the State.
[Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 4537, decided on 21-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Durgesh Garg, AAG Punjab
