Anil Kumar vs State Of Punjab

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner, incarcerated in connection with FIR No. 113 dated 14.06.2023 registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur, under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The prosecution alleged that co-accused persons, found in possession of 38 bottles of cough syrup and 250 tablets of a commercial quantity, disclosed during custodial interrogation that the petitioner was the supplier of the contraband, leading to his arraignment under Section 29 of the NDPS Act; call detail records further revealed telephonic contact between the petitioner and a co-accused on multiple dates proximate to the seizure.

Since the quantity allegedly involved was commercial in nature, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were held applicable, requiring the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions — namely, opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose bail and the court's satisfaction that reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The court noted that the evidence collected so far consisted primarily of disclosure statements without any independent discovery of fact, though unexplained telephone calls between the petitioner and the co-accused constituted corroborative material.

The court also noted that the petitioner had two prior criminal antecedents, both under the NDPS Act. Referring to precedents including Abida v. State of Haryana and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the court proceeded to evaluate whether the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were met on the facts of the case.

Catchwords: NDPS Act · regular bail · commercial quantity · twin conditions · Section 37 · Section 439 CrPC · disclosure statement · call detail records · criminal antecedents · Section 29 NDPS Act

NDPS Act