The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that when interim bail is expressly granted until receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report in NDPS cases, the trial court is empowered to cancel bail upon receipt of such report without further notice to the accused. The decision follows and preserves existing legal precedent and is binding within the jurisdiction, with direct impact on bail proceedings in narcotics matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/50662/2025 of LEKHRAJ ALIAS LEKHU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011455682025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench: MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether interim bail granted till receipt of FSL report in NDPS cases can be cancelled by the trial court upon such receipt without further notice to the accused. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where interim bail is granted until the receipt of FSL report, the trial court is within its rights to cancel such bail upon receiving the report. There is no requirement to provide a separate notice to the accused before cancellation if the bail order was clearly conditional. The court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s decision to cancel interim bail in such circumstances. The petition challenging the cancellation was, therefore, dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was arrested under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act based on FIR No. 35 dated 19.02.2025. Interim bail was granted by the trial court until the receipt of the FSL report. Upon receipt of the FSL report, the trial court cancelled interim bail, forfeited bonds, and issued arrest warrants. The petitioner challenged this cancellation alleging lack of notice and regular court appearance. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; can be cited as persuasive authority |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicit clarification that when interim bail is granted only until the receipt of FSL report, it lapses automatically on such receipt; cancellation does not require additional notice.
- Affirms trial court’s authority to cancel interim bail on receipt of FSL report if bail was expressly conditional.
- Holds that regular appearance of the accused or a future hearing date does not restrict the trial court’s power to cancel bail upon fulfillment of the express condition.
- Lawyers should draft or review interim bail orders carefully for specific conditions and advise clients accordingly on surrender and re-application protocol.
- Interim protection for the petitioner (stay of arrest) was granted to facilitate surrender and bail application.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the specific terms under which interim bail was granted, noting that it was extended explicitly “till receipt of the FSL report.”
- Upon receipt of the FSL report, the trial court was in its rights to cancel such conditional bail.
- The petitioner’s contention, regarding lack of notice and regular appearance in court, was not accepted as the legal ground because the interim bail was not absolute but expressly dependent on the condition that ended with receipt of the FSL report.
- The court found no illegality or infirmity in the procedure adopted by the trial court, dismissing the petition accordingly.
- The High Court provided only interim protection to allow the petitioner to surrender and apply afresh for bail.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the cancellation of interim bail on the ground that no notice was given before cancellation.
- Asserted that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial court.
- Contended that the next date for appearance was fixed as 06.12.2025, and, therefore, cancellation without notice was improper.
Respondent (State of Punjab)
- No detailed arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner was booked under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act following registration of FIR No. 35 dated 19.02.2025 at Police Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar (Rural). Interim bail was granted on 08.04.2025 by the trial court until the receipt of the FSL report. Upon the FSL report’s arrival, the trial court cancelled the interim bail, forfeited the bonds, and issued warrants of arrest. The petitioner challenged this order, citing lack of notice and his regular court appearances.
Statutory Analysis
- The court referred to the NDPS Act, 1985, particularly focusing on the procedural aspect of interim bail linked to forensic reporting.
- The judgment turned on the interpretation of conditional bail orders—specifically, those with explicit timelines or events (here, “till receipt of FSL report”).
- No further statutory sections were interpreted or discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court granted interim protection (stay of arrest) to the petitioner until the next scheduled court date, expressly allowing time to surrender and seek regular bail, ensuring due process and opportunity for the accused.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows and reaffirms existing legal principles regarding conditional/interim bail cancellations upon fulfillment of stipulated conditions.