In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the release of a man who had already spent more time in prison than the sentence imposed on him, in a case involving alleged possession of poppy husk.

The Court underscored that justice should not be denied due to an individual’s financial constraints, noting that “had the appellant been in a better financial position, he or his family could have easily afforded legal representation to keep a tab on the proceedings.”

The case arose when the police stopped the appellant near a village while he was riding a scooter with a large bag. His anxious behavior prompted a search, which led to the discovery of poppy husk. A sample was collected and sent for chemical examination, and an FIR was registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Appointed as amicus curiae, Advocate Vasudha Sharma argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case relied solely on official witnesses, and although one independent witness was joined during the investigation, the prosecution did not examine him. A 26-day delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis was also flagged, raising concerns of possible tampering. Additionally, the appellant had already served more time in custody than the sentence awarded, justifying his immediate release.

Appearing for the State, Advocate Rishabh Singla opposed the appeal, contending that the conviction was valid and well-reasoned. He argued that the appellant was a repeat offender with prior and pending NDPS cases, and thus, the trial court’s decision warranted no interference.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar clarified that since the contraband was recovered from a bag carried by the appellant and no personal search was involved, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not required—citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand.

On the prosecution’s failure to examine the independent witness, the Court acknowledged this as a lapse but held it was not fatal since the overall chain of evidence remained intact. The Court also dismissed the allegation of tampering, noting that the seals on the sample were intact when received by the chemical examiner.

Most importantly, the Court highlighted that although the sentence was one year and six months with an additional three months in default of fine, the appellant had already spent over two years in custody. No explanation was offered for this prolonged detention.

The Court ordered the appellant's release, holding that his continued incarceration was both unjustified and a violation of his fundamental rights. It emphasized that economic disparity should not stand in the way of justice, reaffirming the constitutional commitment to equality.

“The law must be blind to wealth or status and, in line with the constitutional spirit, treat all individuals equally.” – Justice Harpreet Singh Brar