Punjab and Haryana High Court denies fourth bail plea of man caught with commercial quantity of drugs

According to the case details, a case was registered on October 29, 2020, at the Special Task Force (STF), Phase-IV, Mohali, under relevant sections of the NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution, “On 29.10.2020, the AIG of Mohali Police received secret information that the petitioner Manjit Singh alias Manna and Vishal were bringing heroin and ICE from Srinagar.”

Acting on the input, the police intercepted Singh, recovering “6 kg of ICE and 18 kg of heroin,” followed by another “3 kg of heroin” subsequently.

The court noted that Singh was “caught red-handed,” and the recovered contraband constituted commercial quantities. “Dealing in 21 kg of heroin and 6 kg of ICE constitutes an offence under Section 21(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985,” it observed, adding that the seized quantities were “8400% and 12000% above” the upper limit of intermediate quantity.

Rejecting the plea for parity with co-accused already on bail, the court said, “The present application is the fourth bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court… The investigation prima facie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and the petitioner as the main accused, from whom the massive quantity of drugs was seized. Given the above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the grounds of parity.”

The defence argued that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) had tested the ICE sample negative and urged bail citing prolonged custody and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench, however, remarked, “Be that as it may, heroin was also recovered from the petitioner.”

Quoting Section 37, the court elaborated: “Whenever the quantity involved is commercial, the statutory rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply, and the accused seeking bail must satisfy its twin conditions.”

The judge added, “Even if the Court fulfills one of the conditions, namely believing the accused is not guilty, it still cannot conclude that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. Both conditions must be satisfied before bail can be granted.”

‘Delay in concluding trial should be taken into account’

On the right to a speedy trial, the judgment acknowledged that “In deciding bail applications, delay in concluding the trial should be taken into account… if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody?” It referred to the Supreme Court ruling in *Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992)*, which held that “Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily.”

However, applying these principles to this case, the court ruled: “The contraband involved is 21 kg of heroin, which is 84 times more than the highest intermediate quantity. At this stage, the petitioner’s custody, viz-a-viz the quantity of drugs seized, is insufficient to hold that he has accrued a right to bail due to a prolonged trial.”

It also noted Singh’s “criminal antecedents,” including two earlier NDPS cases and one under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Reinforcing the judiciary’s firm stance against commercial drug offences, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner could approach higher courts for relief.