Accused charged under sections 42& 50 of the NDPS Act, Punjab high court grants bail as he was a first-time offender

TITLE: Darshan Singh V State of Punjab

Decided On-: July 24, 2023


CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jasijth Singh Bedi

INTRODUCTION-  The petitioner is requesting the setting aside of the order terminating the petitioner’s dealership agreement by filing this petition in accordance with Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution.


The police party was on patrol when they noticed four people with short hair walking towards them while holding a large black bag in their hands, according to the case’s brief facts. They became confused when they saw the police party and attempted to go back. They were captured, though. The petitioner, Darshan Singh @ Aman, son of Sohan Singh, Lal Hussain, son of Umardin, Mam Hussain, son of Rashid Mohammad, and Gaurav Bhola, son of Jag Partap, all revealed their names. The recovery of 2.50 Kg of Charas from the accused was then accomplished after complying with the relevant provisions of the Act regarding search and seizure.


The petitioner has been wrongly accused in this case, according to the learned attorney for the petitioner. The NDPS Act’s mandatory provisions found in Sections 42 and 50 have not been followed to the fullest extent possible. The time of the search and seizure saw the absence of any independent witnesses. Since he was a first-time offender, had been detained since October 15, 2020, and only two of the prosecution’s eleven witnesses had been questioned, it was likely that the trial would take some time to conclude. As a result, he was entitled to the concession of bail.

On the other hand, the knowledgeable State counsel claims that the petitioner has been found to be in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband. As a result, the petitioner was not eligible for the grant of bail due to the prohibition outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. She does, however, acknowledge that the petitioner is a first-time offender who has been detained since October 15, 2020, and that only two of the prosecution’s eleven witnesses have been questioned thus far.

In these circumstances, and without taking a position on the case’s legal merits, we believe it is appropriate to release the petitioners on bail, subject to any terms and restrictions that the Trial Court may impose.It is also made clear that if the petitioners are discovered to be parties to any other cases governed by the NDPS Act or other criminal laws, it would constitute a misuse of the concession of bail that was granted to them today, and appropriate sanctions would be applied.

In the current case, it is claimed that the petitioner has been in custody since October 15, 2020, and only two of the prosecution’s eleven witnesses have been questioned thus far. He has never been arrested before and is a first-time offender. Given the beneficial provisions of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, in this case, the strictures of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may be somewhat relaxed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *