Punjab and Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail in drug smuggling case, cites ‘expanding network of peddlers’
The prosecution alleged that the network linked to a Pakistani smuggler used drones to transport narcotics into India.
3 min read
Despite interim orders issued by the court directing the release and transportation of the fruit to Ludhiana, the respondents failed to act in a timely manner. (File Photo/ Jasbir Malhi)The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of an accused in a cross-border drug smuggling case, observing that the rising menace of narcotics trafficking requires stringent legal intervention.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while dismissing the petition, noted that the accused was allegedly linked to a network involved in smuggling drugs from Pakistan using drones. “Taking into consideration the expanding network of drug peddlers and the facts of the case, wherein the total quantity involved is 518 grams of ice heroin, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail,” the court ruled.
The case was registered under sections 21, 22, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, with additional charges under Section 27-B of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution, represented by Additional Advocate General (AAG) Jaspal Singh Guru, argued that the accused was part of a drug trafficking network operating along the India-Pakistan border.
The prosecution’s case was based on a disclosure by a co-accused. It was alleged that the network, linked to a Pakistani smuggler, used drones to transport narcotics into India. Authorities claimed that 518 grams of ice heroin and Rs 13.3 lakh in drug money were recovered from the group.
Arguments and court’s ruling
Defence counsel B S Bhalla contended that the accused was falsely implicated based solely on a co-accused’s disclosure, with no independent evidence linking him to the alleged crime. “No recovery has been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner, and he is willing to cooperate in the investigation,” Bhalla argued.
However, the court, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the broader implications of drug smuggling, refused to grant bail. It emphasized that under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, even individuals who conspire or abet drug-related crimes can be held liable.
“The menace of clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in Punjab has led to widespread drug addiction, particularly among adolescents and students. This has assumed serious and alarming proportions,” the court noted.
Judicial concerns on drug trade
Justice Moudgil highlighted that cross-border drug trafficking has become a well-organised operation facilitated by modern methods like drones. “The route between India and Pakistan is the most prominent for illegal trafficking due to factors such as agricultural land, train routes up to the borders, riverine sections, and most recently, drones,” he observed.
The court also stressed the state’s constitutional duty under Article 47 to combat substance abuse and improve public health. “The judicial approach must extend beyond punitive measures to embrace a framework that prioritizes rehabilitation, education, and community reintegration,” the ruling stated.
While dismissing the petition, the court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the trial proceedings. “To unveil the truth and expose the extensive web of inter-border drug peddling, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is cardinal,” it ruled.
You May Like
