The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently observed that if an accused person faces multiple drug-related cases, it becomes difficult to meet the strict bail conditions outlined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi emphasized that someone who is considered a "habitual offender" based on their criminal history is not eligible for bail, even under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision takes into account their past criminal record.

On the contrary, in such situations, the court asserted that custodial interrogation is indeed necessary, regardless of whether the accused had previously cooperated with the investigation.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act establishes specific conditions that must be met before an individual accused in a drug-related case can be granted bail. According to this section, the court is obligated to provide the Public Prosecutor with an opportunity to oppose the release of the accused before considering bail.

Additionally, the court must ensure that there are valid reasons to believe that the accused "is not guilty of the alleged offense and that there is no likelihood of them committing any offense while on bail" before granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

In this particular case, the High Court observed that when an accused individual is already facing multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) against them, it becomes impractical to grant them bail because it is challenging to satisfy the conditions outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act under such circumstances.

In fact, when an accused is confronted with multiple FIRs spanning a significant period of time, the court observed that it becomes practically impossible to meet the twin conditions specified in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which require establishing that the accused had not committed the alleged offense and was not likely to commit any offense in the future.

Justice Bedi made this observation in the context of rejecting an anticipatory bail application filed by an individual (the petitioner) who was being sought by the police in connection with a case registered under Sections 21(c), 22(c), and 25 of the NDPS Act at a police station in Karnal district, Haryana.

The case was registered subsequent to the discovery of 12,000 Alprazolam tablets in possession of a co-accused. The co-accused reportedly informed the police that he had obtained these tablets from the petitioner, leading to the registration of the case.

The counsel representing the petitioner argued that the statement provided by these co-accused holds limited evidentiary value.

The police, on the other hand, countered the petitioner's argument by asserting that the accused petitioner had a history of repeated offenses and was considered a "habitual offender." Furthermore, they stated that another case under the provisions of the NDPS Act had been registered against him, and he was currently evading arrest in that particular case.

The Court took note of the situation and expressed scepticism about the possibility that the petitioner had been implicated in multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) without reasonable cause or solely at the discretion of the investigating agency.

Consequently, the Court proceeded to reject the plea for providing protection to the petitioner from arrest, reasoning that in this particular case, the conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not be met.

Additionally, the Court observed that the petitioner's custodial interrogation would be essential to recover potential evidence and to ensure that the investigation could proceed to its logical conclusion.

Case: Mohammad Rayyan Ansari Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-42482-2023.