Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Section of the for grant of regular bail to the petitioner (‘accused’) in a case registered under Sections , , of (‘NDPS Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil, J., stated that merely because the quantity involved in the present case, was categorized as “Intermediate Quantity” did not, by itself, bestowed an automatic right to bail. Granting bail to those accused of trafficking or peddling highly dangerous substances such as Heroin/Chitta would essentially offer carte blanche for illegal activities.
Thus, the Court stated that considering the discussions and the modus operandi of the kingpins engaged in illicit activities, whether trafficking in small or intermediate quantities, must be met with unwavering resolve and stringent action. The Court stated that granting bail at this stage could inadvertently signal a tacit approval or encouragement of such illegal activities and accordingly dismissed the present petition.
Background
In the present case, it was alleged that 50 grams of the heroin was recovered from the accused. The quantity alleged to have been recovered though fell under non-commercial quality, but the contraband recovered from the other co-accused was commercial in nature and the same was being transported from Pakistan via drone. Thus, the respondent submitted that the accused was not entitled to be released on regular bail.
The accused submitted that he was wrongfully implicated in the present case and claimed that the alleged recovery of 50 grams of heroin was fabricated. It was emphasized that the original FIR was registered the co-accused persons, and the accused was named solely based on the statement of a co-accused, from whom the purported contraband was allegedly seized.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the principle of law dictated that bail was the general rule, while jail was the exception. However, the Court acknowledged that the power to grant or deny bail was extraordinary and must be exercised with caution.
The Court stated that the tactics employed by drug peddlers engaging in the narcotics trade often involve starting with small or intermediate quantities, banking on the assumption that, even if apprehended, they would be granted bail. However, this could not be the intended purpose of the law. Such individuals, who were involved in trafficking even modest amounts of contraband, were akin to termites eroding the fabric of society. It is imperative that in such cases, the Court takes a firm and resolute stance, addressing them with the utmost severity to curb this insidious menace.
The Court stated that merely because the quantity involved in the present case, was categorized as “Intermediate Quantity” did not, by itself, bestowed an automatic right to bail. Granting bail to those accused of trafficking or peddling highly dangerous substances such as Heroin/Chitta would essentially offer carte blanche for illegal activities. Such a decision would embolden these individuals to persist in their illicit trade, operating under the misguided belief that even if apprehended, they could be swiftly released on bail.
The Court further stated that the modus operandi of the masterminds behind the illegal trafficking whether dealing in small or intermediate quantities must be met with unwavering severity. The legislative intent and the rule of law must be rigorously enforced, and could not be allowed to be undermined, irrespective of the quantity in question. Thus, the Court stated that even if the stringent provisions of Section of did not apply, the accused could not be granted an advantage or permission to seek bail, especially when 50 grams of heroin was recovered from him. Granting bail at this stage could inadvertently signal a tacit approval or encouragement of such illegal activities.
The Court stated that in the present case, where 50 grams of heroin was seized from the accused, the method of trafficking was evidenced as the contraband being smuggled from Pakistan via drone highlights the sophisticated network facilitating such illegal trade, which demands a resolute and uncompromising response. Further, the Court stated that the accused’s criminal history also raised serious concerns about the likelihood of reoffending. There was a distinct possibility that, if the accused was granted bail, he would once again partake in this unlawful enterprise. To grant bail at this stage would subtly convey a tacit endorsement or unintentional encouragement of such nefarious activities.
Thus, the Court stated that considering the discussions and the modus operandi of the kingpins engaged in illicit activities, whether trafficking in small or intermediate quantities, must be met with unwavering resolve and stringent action. The intent of the legislature and the sanctity of the rule of law must be upheld at all costs, and could not be allowed to be undermined, regardless of the quantity involved. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present petition.
[Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M- 54048 of 2024, decided on 06-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sukhbir Mandi, Advocate;
For the Respondent: J.S. Rattu, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Corresponding Section of
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The post appeared first on .