'Misfortune' That Mother Of Young Daughters Was Denied Bail For Allegedly Possessing Heroine, Drug Money Without Prima Facie Evidence: P&H HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a mother of three young daughters arrested in August for allegedly possessing merely 12 grams of heroine, and drug money of Rs.10,000 without any prima facie evidence."A mother of three daughters, aged 4, 2, &1, incarcerated in the FIR..., since 4th August 2024 for possessing 12 grams of heroin, just 4.8% of the maximum...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a mother of three young daughters arrested in August for allegedly possessing merely 12 grams of heroine, and drug money of Rs.10,000 without any prima facie evidence.
"A mother of three daughters, aged 4, 2, &1, incarcerated in the FIR..., since 4th August 2024 for possessing 12 grams of heroin, just 4.8% of the maximum intermediate quantity, and Rs. 10,000/- termed as drug money by the Police, without any primafacie evidence to such an extent, and to her extreme misfortune, despite all this, denied bail by worthy Special Judge, has come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail," observed the High Court.
As per the FIR On Aug 04, 2024, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 12 grams of heroin from the the petitioner's possession. Additionally, the police also recovered Rs. 10,000/- from her purse, which the police termed as drug money, and based on such self- declaration inserted Section 27-A along with Section 21 of the NDPS Act.
After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply on the alleged recovery of the heroin.
"All sections in the NDPS Act specify an offence and mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending pon the quantity of the substance. The comercial quantity mandates a minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of the NDPS Act. When the quantity is less than comercial, the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and the factors for bail become similar to the offence regular statutes," the judge explained.
With respect to the alleged drug money, the Court found that the money was not even recovered along with the contraband but from the petitioner's purse.
"It is most common for Indian woman to keep money in their purses. The police had no evidence to term such money as drug money, and forgetting the statutory mandate of S. 23 (1) and (2) of BSA, 2023, invoked the stringent penal provision of S. 27-A just to trigger the legislative restrictions placed on bail through S. 37 of NDPS Act. In such a background, S. 37 of the NDPS Act shall neither attract in law nor through its inclusion in the FIR," the Court said.
It further added that "the pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing."
However, the Court said that there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime of recovery of heroine but given the quantity of 12 grams of heroin, "it is not a case where bail should be denied."
In light of the above, the plea was allowed while certain restrictions were imposed.
Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Title: Parveen @ Raman v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 305