NDPS Act | Twin Conditions For Bail U/S 37 Cannot Be Satisfied When There Are Multiple FIRs Against Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that when there are multiple FIRs against an accused then twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - one being that accused is not guilty and he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail - cannot be satisfied.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said,

"When there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied.Further, the limitation to the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are in addition to those prescribed under the Cr.P.C. or any other law in force on the grant of bail. Thus, a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents. On the contrary, in such cases, the custodial interrogation is certainly necessary even though the accused may have joined investigation at an earlier stage."

The Court was hearing anticipatory bail plea under Section 438 CrPC in case of contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations involving commercial quantity under Sections 21(c), 22(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act at Karnal, Haryana.

According to FIR, one Pradeep was caught with 240 strips each strips 50 tablets i.e. 12000 tablets of Alprazolam tablets and 70 MTP kits. In disclosure statement he revealed that he had purchased the intoxicants from the petitioner Rayyan Ansari.

The Court noted that the petitioner was accused in another FIR under NDPS Act.

In a status report filed by DSP, Assandh, Karnal it was submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender. One other case bearing under Section 21C, 22C, 29 NDPS Act Police Station Assandh in June, 2023 was registered against the petitioner in which he is absconding.

Considering the submissions, the bench referred to High Court's decision in Vijay Singh v. The State of Haryana, wherein the accused was granted the concession of anticipatory bail even though he had been an accused in another case under the NDPS Act in which he was on bail.

However, the bench noted that in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023), the High Court held that, "where there were multiple FIRs against an accused over a period of time then, even though he had been named in a disclosure statement, he was not entitled to the concession of bail."

Consequently, the Court decided that, the twin condition as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied when there are multiple FIRs against an accused.

In the light of the above the Court opined that in such cases the custodial interrogation is certainly necessary "even though the accused may have joined investigation at an earlier stage."

Hence, the pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

Appearance: Mohd. Uzair, Advocate for the petitioner.

Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 188

Case Title: Mohammad Rayyan Ansari v. State of Haryana

Click here to read/download the order.