The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, commonly referred to as the NDPS Act, is “An act of parliament of India that prohibits a person the production/manufacturing/cultivation, possession, sale, purchasing, transport, storage, and/or consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.” The petitioner was convicted under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, i.e. “where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”
Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, i.e. “prescribes the punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders. The court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.” It was filed in an FIR No.208 on the 12th of august 2019 registered at the police station in the district of Fatehabad. Therefore the petitioner filed for regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C.
This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 22nd of July 2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal in the case of Inderjeet Singh @Tota @Jeet versus State of Haryana CRM-M-5069-2020. Mr. Mikhail Kad represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj Represented the state of Haryana, the proceedings of the court were held through video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner was in possession of 970 tablets with a total weight of 565 grams of tramadol which was recovered from the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner he contends that earlier by the coordinate bench, the petitioner was released on interim bail and by not misusing the opportunity he surrendered back on the 19th of July 2021 and he has been kept in custody for over one year and four months and the petitioner has not been previously involved in any case under the NDPS act.
However, the counsel for the state of Haryana stated that only five out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined and therefore objected to the bail for the petitioner as the examination has not yet been concluded for the petitioner.
The high court held that since the petitioner has been held in custody for over a year and four months and he has not been involved in any case under the NDPS act and due to the covid-19 pandemic the proceedings of the trial will take some time and therefore the court decided to grant regular bail to the petitioner
The court concluded “Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”