In NDPS Cases Where Sentence Is Of 10 Yrs Accused Should Generally Not Be Released On Bail , Says Punjab & Haryana HC

Post By 24law
February 12, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasized that in cases involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), where the sentence is of ten years, the accused should generally not be released on bail. Justice Manisha Batra, while rejecting the bail plea of an accused in an NDPS case, categorically stated: "It has been seen that the denial of bail has prevented the accused from fleeing from the criminal justice and protected the society by preventing that additional criminal activity. It is believed that the graver the crime the graver is the chances of absconding. Even otherwise, in NDPS cases, where the sentence is of ten years, the accused should generally be not released on bail as in such like cases, negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception."

Case Background

The Court was hearing a bail plea filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Aaditya Sharma, accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that a secret information was received by a police party headed by SI Sukhwinder Singh stating that the petitioner, who was habitual in selling drugs, was transporting a large quantity of Hashish (Charas). Acting on this information, the police set up a barrier and intercepted the petitioner’s car (HP-23-D-7947). Upon seeing the police, the petitioner allegedly threw a heavy white polythene bag on the ground and attempted to turn back but was apprehended. The search of the discarded polythene bag led to the recovery of 01 kg. 100 grams of Charas.

Court’s Observations on FSL Report and Conscious Possession

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the FSL report merely stated the presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol and other Cannabinoids without specifying the percentage, thus raising an arguable point regarding the nature of the contraband. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating: "A perusal of the FSL report shows that it is clearly reported that Charas was found in the sample. Hence, at this stage, it cannot be stated that the recovered contraband was not Charas. So far as the percentage of Tetrahydrocannbol and other cannabionoid is concerned, I do not deem it appropriate to look into the same as this fact it is to be looked into and decided by the learned trial Court after appreciating the entire material placed on record before it."

The defense further argued that the alleged recovery was not from the conscious possession of the petitioner since the polythene bag was thrown on the ground. The Court, however, found no merit in this contention, highlighting: "Recovery of 01 kg. 100 grams of Charas was effected from a polythene bag, which was thrown by him on seeing the police party and in the process of fleeing away."

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

The High Court referred to Supreme Court judgments on the concept of conscious possession, particularly Dharampal Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2010) 9 SCC 608], wherein it was held that knowledge of possession must be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court reiterated that: "The attempt to discard the contraband upon seeing the police do not automatically negate possession. Instead such actions indicate an intention to evade liability, which makes the role of the accused in the offence even more evident." The Court also cited Madan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2003) 7 SCC 465], emphasizing that conscious possession involves an awareness of the contraband’s existence and that once possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise.

Application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Since the recovered contraband fell within the commercial quantity category, the Court held that the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were applicable, observing that: "The quantity of the contraband recovered in this case falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and no ground has been made out before the Court so as to believe that the petitioner did not commit subject offence or in case, he is released on bail, he would not commit any such or similar offence." The Court concluded that there was no justification for granting bail at this stage, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the recovered contraband, and the potential sentence upon conviction.

Verdict

Dismissing the bail plea, the High Court reiterated the established principle that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances.