Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a regular bail application filed by the accused in an FIR registered under Sections 21 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (‘NDPS’) and Sections 379 and 411 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil, J., dismissed the application holding that the accused actively indulged in the business of selling narcotic substances and was found in possession of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, thus, the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act would apply. Thus, considering the negative impacts of drug use, the Court stated that, as the guardian of its citizens, it was essential for it to take decisive action against such offenders, especially when the lives and futures of the nation’s youth were at stake.
Background
According to the FIR, the three accused were caught with 290 grams of heroin, and the FIR was lodged against them under Sections 21 and 25 of the NDPS Act and Sections 379 and 411 of IPC.
Analysis
The Court reiterated that in everyday terms, the principle of law dictates that bail is the general rule, while jail is the exception. However, the power to grant or deny bail is extraordinary and must be exercised with caution. The Court added that when considering a bail application, whether pre-arrest or regular bail, the Court must form a prima facie opinion as to whether reasonable grounds exist to support the accusation or if the accusation is frivolous and baseless, possibly made to harm, humiliate, or falsely implicate the individual in the crime.
The Court remarked that drugs are a social malady. While drug addiction eats into the vitals of society, drug trafficking eats into the vitals of the economy. Furthermore, the illicit money generated by drug trafficking was often used for illicit activities, including the encouragement of terrorism. The Court added, “The devastating effects of narcotic drugs on any person who comes to its touch are too well known. Normally, such a person ceases to be a normal human being and is more or less reduced to zombie-like animal existence and rushing fast to meet the maker. Divine qualities of an individual who consumes narcotic drugs disappear, and they are the first sacrifices one normally makes while falling prey to the use of drugs.” Further, the legislature was anxious to prevent the adverse effects of such drugs and substances on society.
The Court stated that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail was circumscribed by Section 37 of NDPS Act which states that bail can be granted only if reasonable grounds are there to believe the innocence of the accused along with the fact that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court explained that it is negative burden casted on the petitioner to disapprove the case of prosecution as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Regarding the present case, the Court noted that the quantity recovered from the accused was commercial in nature thus, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. Therefore, it would not be just for the Court to let the accused out as it was sufficient for the Court to infer that the accused actively indulged in the business of selling narcotic substances. Further, the Court added that the young accused were resorting to theft and other criminal activities to satisfy their drug cravings.
The Court remarked that this highlighted the State Government’s failure to address the growing drug problem, which was particularly alarming in Punjab. The widespread drug abuse is severely undermining the future of the country, as it is gradually eroding the youth population, much like a termite. Thus, the Court stated that, as the guardian of its citizens, it was essential for it to take decisive action against such offenders, especially when the lives and futures of the nation’s youth were at stake.
The Court further remarked, “The drug epidemic must be tackled with the utmost seriousness. The illegal activities carried out by the individuals involved must be met with resolute measures. The intent of the legislature and the integrity of the rule of law must be preserved at all costs and cannot be allowed to be undermined, irrespective of the quantity of drugs involved.”
Accordingly, the Court denied the concession of regular bail to the accused.
[Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 1600, decided on 11-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Nitin Sachdeva
For the respondent: Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
