Highly Unlikely That Accused Is Implicated In Multiple FIRs At Whims & Fancies: P&H High Court Refuses Bail To ‘Habitual Offender’ Under NDPS Act
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to an accused after noting that he was a ‘habitual offender’ with multiple FIRs registered against him under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The bench was also of the opinion that the twin conditions for bail as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that the accused has not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence were not satisfied.
A single judge bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi thus noted, “It is highly unlikely that the petitioner would have been implicated in multiple FIRs at the whims and fancies of the Investigating Agency. In fact, 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 CrPC 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 CrPC 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”.
Advocate Mohd. Uzair appeared for the petitioner and Asstt. A.G. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, appeared for the State of Haryana.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 CrPC was for the grant of anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 21(c), 22(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act. In the present matter, as per the allegations the petitioner came to be apprehended on the basis of a secret information, pursuant to which 240 strips each strips 50 tablets i.e. 12000 tablets of Alprazolam tablets and 70 MTP kits came to be recovered from him. During the course of the investigation, Pradeep revealed that he had purchased the said contraband from Mohammad Rayyan Ansari (petitioner) resident of Arora Medical Store.
The bench in the order referred to the High Court’s previous judgments in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-25526-2023, decided on July 17, 2023 and Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib, CRM-M-31645- 2022, decided on October 20, 2022 where it was held that where there were multiple FIRs against an accused over a period of time then, even though the accused had been named in a disclosure statement, he was not entitled to the concession of bail.
The Court considering the factual matrix in the present case noted that other than the present case, the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, and that the petitioner is also an accused in another dated June 17, 2023 under Section 21C, 22C, 29 NDPS Act.
Therefore, the bench was of the opinion that considering the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, “his custodial interrogation was necessary to effect recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion”. Accordingly, the bench dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Mohammad Rayyan Ansari v. State Of Haryana [Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:124795]
Click here to read/download the Order