PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before:- Anoop Chitkara, J.
CRM-M-32178 of 2025. D/d.26.08.2025.
Rishi Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab.
IMPORTANT
Bail granted under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 considering prolonged pre-trial custody, rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act, and judicial precedents emphasizing Article 21 of the Constitution.A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 37 Bail Petitioner incarcerated under NDPS Act charges involving commercial quantity of Tramadol – Bail granted due to prolonged pre-trial custody (02 years, 06 months, 19 days) and judicial precedents emphasizing Article 21 of the Constitution – Supreme Court precedents cited where bail was granted in similar circumstances.
B. Criminal Procedure Bail Conditions – Court imposed stringent bail conditions to ensure the petitioner does not repeat the offence or tamper with evidence – Additional conditions include surrendering firearms, abiding by bond conditions, and revocation of bail in case of repeated offences under NDPS Act.
C. Bail – Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court judgments emphasized the balance between the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial – Bail conditions must be proportional to the purpose they seek to serve.
E/MM/6/12/2025
Cases Referred :-
Ajay Khatri v. The State of Rajasthan,SLP (Crl) No. 1228-2025, decided on 20-03-2025
Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025, CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025
Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal,SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, decided on 08.12.2024
Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, decided on 13.07.2023JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 305 | 21.12.2022 | A Division, District Amritsar | 22-C, 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act and 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC |
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 16 of the bail application, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 21.12.2022, based on prior information, the Police seized 29,920 tablets (Tramadol Hydrochloride) from the possession of co-accused Nishan Sharma. During further investigation, police seized 3,20,000 tablets, 4,05,000 capsules from Usman Rajput, 3,56,800 tablets from Rajan Kumar and present petitioner and 45,925 injections, 14,925 capsules and 19,700 tablets from Manoj Kumar Sahu (all tramadol Hydrochloride). The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
4. The petitioner’s counsel seeks bail on the grounds of prolonged pretrial custody.
5. The petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. He further submits that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.
6. The petitioner’s counsel 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 offence or commits any non-bailable offence 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 Section 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.
7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
Reasoning:
8. It shall be relevant to refer to the following portions of status report, which reads as follows:
9. Tramadol constitutes an offence under the following provisions and notifications:
| Substance Name | Tramadol |
| Drug’s Small & Commercial Qty. suggested by Committee report | |
| Notification No. & date | S.O. 1762 (E) dated 26.04.2018 |
| Punishable U/s | S.22(a) of NDPS Act, 1985 |
| Specified as small & Commercial in Section 2(viia) & 2(xxiiia) NDPS Act, 1985 | ||
| Notification No. & dated | S.O.1762(E) | 4/26/2018 |
| Sr. No. | 238 ZH | |
| Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) | Tramadol | |
| Other non-proprietary name | ****** | |
| Chemical Name | ****** | |
| Small Quantity | < 5 Gram | |
| Commercial Quantity | > 250 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.O.1761(E) & S.O. 3448(E) | 26-Apr-2018& 26-Jul- 2018 |
| Sr. No. | 110Y |
| Common Name (Name of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance (International non-proprietary name (INN) | Tramadol |
| Other non-proprietary name | ****** |
| Chemical Name | ****** |
10. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions set forth by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
11. Earlier, a Co-ordinate bench had dismissed the petitioner’s bail on merits; however, the trial has delayed, and now this Court has considered the bail only on the ground of delay in trial.
12. The petitioner is entitled to bail because, in somewhat similar cases where the quantity involved was either greater than or close to the amount seized in the current FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail after prolonged custody, as demonstrated by the following judicial precedent.
13. In Ajay Khatri v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 20-03-2025, SLP (Crl) No. 1228-2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,
14. Per the custody certificate dated 06.08.2025, the petitioner’s custody in this FIR is 02 years, 06 months and 19 days.
15. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13 July 2023.
16. Following the judicial precedent mentioned above, without commenting on the case’s merits, and considering the petitioner’s pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, further pre-trial incarceration is not justified at this stage. However, this order shall take effect from the time it is uploaded to this Court’s official webpage.
Conditions:
17. Given 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 concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
18. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
| 1. | AADHAR number |
| 2. | Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. |
| 3. | Mobile number (If available) |
| 4. | E-Mail id (If available) |
19. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.
20. The 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, pressurise, 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.
21. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, members of society, 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 release from prison 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 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 offence.
22. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offence and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.”
23. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, the 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.”
24. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner’s behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition.
25. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offence where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates Section 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, or commits any non-bailable offence which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, 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.
26. Any observation made here-in-above is neither an expression of opinion on the case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
27. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [in CRA-D-123-2020, decided on 05.08.2025], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.”
28. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
.