The High Court clarified that the pendency of other criminal cases against an accused is not, by itself, a ground to deny regular bail under Section 20 of the NDPS Act when the recovered quantity is below the commercial threshold and investigation is complete. This ruling affirms the bail jurisdiction for non-commercial quantity offences and serves as binding precedent within Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/51382/2025 of VIKASH ALIAS KANA Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011473732025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench: Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 |
| Questions of Law | Whether pendency of other criminal cases alone can justify denial of bail under Section 20 NDPS Act when the quantity recovered is not commercial and the investigation is complete. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that when the amount of contraband recovered from the accused is below the commercial quantity, and the investigation is complete with the challan filed, continued incarceration does not serve a useful purpose. While noting the petitioner’s involvement in other cases, the Court held that such antecedents, on their own, do not disentitle the accused from consideration for bail under these circumstances. The bail was granted, with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation in the event of subsequent involvement in other offences. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was apprehended on 22.09.2024 with 5 kgs. 12 grams of Ganja (non-commercial quantity) based on secret information. He was arrested, investigation completed, and challan presented; petitioner in custody for over a year. The prosecution relied on his criminal antecedents to oppose bail. The Court granted regular bail. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited before the Supreme Court for similar fact situations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court unequivocally held that involvement in other criminal cases alone is insufficient to deny bail under Section 20 NDPS Act for non-commercial quantity offences.
- Bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act is reaffirmed: when the contraband is below the commercial threshold and investigation is complete, prolonged custody is not warranted.
- The decision authorises prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in the event of subsequent offences by the accused.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified that the seized contraband (5 kgs. 12 grams of Ganja) does not amount to “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act.
- After perusing the custody certificate, the Court noted that the petitioner had already been incarcerated for more than one year and one month and investigation/challan was complete.
- It recognised that while “involvement in other cases” is relevant, it cannot by itself be treated as determinative to deny bail.
- The Court balanced the gravity of allegations and pendency of other cases against the principle that, where the offence does not involve commercial quantity and the investigation is over, further detention is not justified if no other exceptional grounds exist.
- The order allows for cancellation of bail if the petitioner is found involved in any subsequent case, thus balancing societal concerns with individual liberty.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed false implication and assertion of planted recovery.
- Stressed long duration in custody and non-commercial nature of the seized quantity.
- Argued that investigation and challan were complete and continued detention served no useful purpose.
- Stated that pendency of other cases should not be a ground for denying bail.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed bail on grounds of seriousness of allegations and criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
- Urged that gravity of offence and petitioner’s history required continued incarceration.
Factual Background
On 22.09.2024, the petitioner was apprehended by police in Faridabad based on secret information and allegedly found in possession of 5 kgs. 12 grams of Ganja. He was arrested at the spot, after which the investigation was completed and the challan presented. The petitioner had remained in custody for over a year at the time of seeking regular bail. The State opposed bail citing his involvement in other criminal cases.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court applied Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which penalises possession of certain narcotic substances.
- The judgment observed that the seized quantity was below the threshold for “commercial quantity” as defined under the NDPS Act.
- In examining grounds for bail, the Court also referenced principles for grant of bail after completion of investigation and filing of challan.
- No constitutional provisions or further statutory interpretation was undertaken.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were set in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on bail for non-commercial NDPS offences reaffirmed.