Affirms that, in NDPS cases involving serious offences, regular bail may be declined when the trial is nearing completion and the accused has already availed opportunities to lead defence evidence; upholds prevailing practice, provides clear guidance for similar circumstances. Stands as binding precedent for subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana and persuasive elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/42002/2025 of PARVEEN KUMAR ALIAS RAHUL Vs STATE OF PUNJAB CNR PHHC011219522025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; persuasive for other courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Criminal Procedure (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether regular bail should be granted under Section 483 BNSS at the fag end of NDPS trial when accused has already availed defence evidence opportunities |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that regular bail is unlikely to be granted when NDPS trials are at their final stage and prosecution evidence is complete.
- Explicitly notes that mere pendency of defence evidence, especially when prior opportunities have not been utilized, is insufficient ground for bail.
- Provides practical guidance for practitioners: stage of trial and conduct in availing defence opportunities are critical factors in Section 483 BNSS bail petitions in NDPS cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the stage of proceedings—trial was almost complete, with all prosecution witnesses examined and only defence evidence pending.
- It was emphasized that the petitioner (and co-accused) had received two prior opportunities to conclude their defence but had failed to do so.
- The gravity of offences under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act was expressly noted.
- The court found no compelling reason or ground to interfere by granting regular bail at such an advanced stage of trial.
- Therefore, the bail petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No specific arguments recorded beyond the filing of the petition for regular bail.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted that trial is at its fag end.
- All prosecution witnesses have been examined.
- Defence has already availed two opportunities to lead evidence but failed to conclude it.
Factual Background
- On 07.03.2023, police acting on secret information apprehended the petitioner and a co-accused while they were riding a scooter.
- A recovery of 260 grams of heroin was made from the pillion rider’s jeans pocket.
- Both accused were arrested at the spot.
- FIR registered under Sections 21(C) and 29 NDPS Act.
- As per record, the trial is currently at the defence evidence stage; prosecution evidence concluded.
- Previous bail petitions by the petitioner were dismissed as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked for seeking regular bail.
- Offences pertain to Sections 21(C) (commercial quantity of narcotics) and 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
- Court did not provide any novel interpretation, but applied existing law emphasizing the gravity of the charges under NDPS Act and significance of the trial stage.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion—judgment was authored solely by Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on bail in NDPS matters at advanced trial stages is affirmed.