NDPS Act | Long Custody Can't Be Grounds For Bail When Recovery Is “Heavy”: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Bail To Accused In Alleged 'Big Drug Racket'

The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant bail to 17 accused in an alleged "big drugs racket" operating in Punjab observing that bail cannot be granted on the ground of long custody when alleged recovery of drugs is "heavy".

The accused persons were booked in an 2020 FIR wherein it was alleged that they had formed a racket, engaged in procuring intoxicant tablets & narcotic substance from outside the State and supplying the same in villages of Punjab.

Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said, "in an ordinary case, long incarceration may be a ground for bail, but in the present case, recovery alleged against the petitioners is not only commercial; but heavy in nature, including 3,05,72,696 intoxicant tablets and capsules; 15 kg and 70 gms broken lose tablets; drug money amounting to Rs.9,35,000; six vehicles and 10 mobile phones."

The Court pointed that some of the petitioners were arrested from different parts of the country i.e. West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and New Delhi "which is a pointer to the fact that prima facie, it is a big racket involved in manufacturing/supplying/selling/ transporting of illegal drugs with a deep rooted conspiracy."

These observations were made while hearing a batch of 17 petitions filed by the accused under Sections 21, 22, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

After hearing each petitioner, referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court said that Section 37 "is in the nature of non-obstante clause to Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including Section 439 thereof {now Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS')} and which, inter alia, lays down that no person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail."

The Court added that, "both the above conditions are cumulative and not alternative."

It further pointed that as on today, 54 Prosecution witnesses have already been examined; there is no lapse on the part of prosecution and trial is going on a normal pace and even the antecedents of the petitioners are also not clean; "rather they are habitual offenders."

While dismissing the pleas, the Court considering  the custody of petitioners, asked the Special Court to proceed in the matter "expeditiously and to avoid unwarranted adjournment(s) to either of the parties."

Title:  Rakesh Bansal v. State of Punjab [along with connected petitions]

Click here to read/download the order