“‘Innocents Becoming Scapegoats’: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Flags ‘Misuse of Police Powers’, Says ‘No Useful Purpose in Indefinite Custody’”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil, granted regular bail to a petitioner charged under Sections 21-B and 22-C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The decision rests on the principles of procedural fairness, delays in trial, and constitutional guarantees under Article 21. The Court recorded, “a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody.”
The petitioner, who was arrested in connection with an FIR dated 22.04.2024 registered at Police Station Special Task Force, Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali, sought regular bail. The allegations involved the recovery of 2400 Alprazolam tablets and 100 grams of heroin. Despite the gravity of the charges, the Court considered factors such as delayed trial proceedings, lack of examined prosecution witnesses, and constitutional protections to conclude that continued incarceration would be unjust. It stated, “no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail his right for speedy trial and expeditious disposal.”
Significant observations were also made regarding the systemic impact of performance-based targets imposed on law enforcement in drug enforcement drives. The Court noted that such mechanisms, “may inadvertently facilitate expansion at an accelerated rate due to the focus on meeting quantified targets.”
The incident as narrated in the FIR states that the petitioner was intercepted by a police team led by Assistant Sub Inspector Major Singh during patrolling in the area of Village Bagehar. The officers conducted a barricade on the road toward Village Burj Sema. At approximately 10 AM, a white Swift Dzire vehicle was stopped. The petitioner was identified as Amrik Singh, a resident of Bhagi Wander, District Bathinda.
Upon search of the vehicle, 240 strips—totaling 2400 tablets—of Alprazolam IP 0.5 mg, branded B-Rest 0.5, were recovered from the dashboard. These were found to be devoid of any batch number and expiry date. Additionally, 100 grams of heroin was found concealed near the gear lever, wrapped in a transparent polythene bag.
Subsequently, a personal search was conducted under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police Paramjit Singh, following the petitioner's request for a Gazetted Officer under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. A memo of non-consent was executed and signed. The personal search yielded ₹1000 in cash, a car registration certificate, and a mobile phone.
The prosecution charged the petitioner under Sections 21-B and 22-C of the NDPS Act, citing the possession of narcotic substances without a permit. The challan was filed on 09.10.2024, and charges were framed on 30.10.2024. As of the hearing date, no prosecution witnesses had been examined.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the recovery was not made from his conscious possession and emphasized procedural lapses under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It was submitted that the search of the vehicle preceded the notice under Section 50, thereby vitiating compliance. The counsel further highlighted that the 100g heroin recovered fell under the non-commercial quantity threshold and referred to the FSL report dated 30.06.2024, which confirmed the absence of batch numbers on the Alprazolam tablets. The petitioner prayed for bail on these grounds.
The State, through its Deputy Advocate General, opposed the bail, stating that the offence was grave in nature due to the quantity of narcotics recovered. It was also submitted that the petitioner was previously involved in similar cases and did not have a clean criminal record.
A custody certificate was placed on record, affirming the filing of the charge sheet and the framing of charges.
The Court recorded its concern regarding procedural delays, noting that “out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.” Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, the Court observed, “the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail... is an exception.”
The judgment stated that a judge must assess bail applications not merely on the basis of charges but also considering broader principles such as presumption of innocence, participation in investigation, and the accused's background. The Court observed, “It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences... The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor.”
Referring to the search process, the Court observed procedural discrepancies, stating that the recovery was allegedly made during the day yet no independent public witnesses could be joined. “Such concocted version of the prosecution raises suspect in the mind of the court,” the Court stated.
The Court further took judicial notice of a newspaper clipping from Indian Express dated 18.03.2025, produced as ‘Document A’, in which the Director General of Police, Punjab, reportedly stated that “SSP and SHO will be assigned targets in the ongoing drive against drug offences.” The Court recorded, “Such assessments would definitely lead to misusing of powers by the police authority and the essence of the anti drug drive would be lost in the urge of achieving a commendable ACR.”
While acknowledging the commendable intent behind the anti-drug initiatives, the Court also cautioned against practices that could result in wrongful arrests, stating, “the innocent person would be made a scapegoat to achieve one’s target.”
Additionally, the Court relied on State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh, AIR 2019 SC 5298, wherein it was held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not apply to searches of vehicles. Nevertheless, the Court asserted that the procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act must still be adhered to in spirit.
In response to the State’s argument regarding the petitioner’s criminal history, the Court cited its earlier judgment in Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-25914-2022, observing that, “the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases.”
In light of these considerations, the Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail, “subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.” The order clarifies that it should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. J.S. Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Case Title: Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:037016
Case Number: CRM-M-13377-2025
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
[Read/Download order]
