Rashpal Singh vs UT of J&K

Rajesh Sekhri, J

The applicant being aggrieved of order dated 19.05.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS cases), Jammu [“the trial court], vide which his bail application came to be declined, has approached this Court for emancipation.

As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, on 08.04.2025, Police Station Satwari received a source information that some notorious criminals were roaming in Raina Colony, Satwari, and there was apprehension of commission of some heinous crime. On the receipt of this report, the police party proceeded to the spot. At about 2100 hours, the policy party found a new Hyundai Creta Car, bearing registration No. JK02DC-9666, parked on the roadside, in which three persons were sitting. It is alleged that when a team member challenged the persons to alight from the vehicle, the driver of the car and his associates reversed the vehicle in furtherance of common criminal intention, to kill the police party. The car hit the police vehicle and ran over ASI Swaran Singh (No. XJ-976324) and HC Sanjeev Singh (No. 474/J), who as a result fell down and sustained serious injuries. The police party, in an attempt to stop the vehicle, blocked the road with their official vehicles, but the driver of the car hit one of the police vehicles. In order to protect the policy party, SPO Sahil Kumar (No. 332/SPO) fired at the front tyre of the car, causing the tyre to burst and the car hit a wall. It is alleged that said persons deterred the police party from discharging the official duties. The injured police personnels were shifted to the hospital and all the three persons boarding the car were detained. On questioning, they revealed their names as Rashpal Singh (the applicant), Parmodh Kumar and Redham. A Tokka came to be recovered on personal search of the applicant and a transparent polythene pouch weighing approximately 10-15 grams of heroin-like substance came to be recovered from the dashboard of the car. On receipt of this docket, FIR No. 73/2025 for offences under Sections 109, 132/115(2)/3(5) BNS, 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act and 4/25 Arms Act came to be registered against the applicant and co-accused.

During investigation, the heroin-like substance was weighed and found to be 15.74/75 grams, which came to be seized and sealed. The FSL team recovered and sealed five empty cartridges from the spot. The sharp-edged weapon recovered from the personal search of the applicant also came to be seized and sealed. Rytham Babroya was given the benefit of Section 180 BNSS and released from policy custody. Co-accused Parmodh Kumar Ahirwar came to be enlarged on bail by the competent court.

As per the investigating agency, the applicant-accused was also involved in FIR No. 258/2021 for offences under Sections 8/21/22/25 NDPS Act of Police Station Bahufort, Jammu, FIR No. 84/2023 for offences under Sections 8/21//22/25/29 NDPS Act of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and FIR No. 324/2023 for offences under Sections 8/21/2225/29/27-A NDPS Act of Police Station Satwari, Jammu and is a notorious criminal and a drug peddler. The investigation culminated in the presentation of final report in the trial court for the aforesaid offences.

It is contention of the applicant that on 08.04.2025 at about 9.15 PM, while he had gone to the market near Raina Colony, Upper Gadigarh, in his new Hyundai Creta Car bearing No. JK02DC-9666, he was abruptly intercepted and forcibly taken away by police personnels of Police Station, Satwari in the presence of local residents. It is alleged by the applicant that police smashed his car, forcibly removed his gold chain, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, he was brutally beaten and illegally detained without informing his family for over a day. According to the applicant, he has been involved in a false and frivolous case against him.

It is further contention of the applicant that he has already been enlarged on bail by the competent courts in all the FIRs mentioned in the police report. The said FIRs formed the basis of a detention order against him under PITNDPS Act, which came to be quashed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.09.2024 in HCP No. 43/2024.

According to the applicant his involvement in earlier FIRs cannot be the sole reason for rejection of his bail, particularly when the quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered, is of intermediate quantity. He submits that his wife and two minor daughters are dependent on him and there is no flight risk. The applicant undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions, in the event of his release on bail.

The respondents have primarily opposed the plea on the ground that applicant is a habitual offender, who has no regard for law of the land and is involved in heinous nature of crime which carries a severe punishment. According to the respondents, the applicant, being a habitual offender, has the propensity to indulge in similar criminal activities.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I have gone through the record.

Mr. K.S Johal, learned senior counsel for the applicant has relied upon Muneesh vs. State of UP; 2025(2) KLT 710, Jasbir Singh vs. Narcotics Control Bureau; 2024 NCDHC 5003, Arshid Ahmad Ganie vs. UT of J&K (Home), (Bail App No. 64/2024) and Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam; 2025 SCC Online SC 40, to reiterate the grounds urged in the application.

It is trite that the law of bails dovetails the conflicting interests of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing the crimes and their propensity to repeat the crime while on bail and absolute adherence to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding the presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty. Therefore, the grant or refusal of bail must reflect a perfect balance between these two conflicting interests.

The facts and circumstances to be considered at the time of grant or refusal of bail are the seriousness of the offence, potential impact on the investigation, the risk of the accused absconding, the nature of accusations, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail and, of course, balancing the individual liberty with a need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The bail plea of the applicant has been opposed by the respondents primarily on the ground that he is a habitual offender, as he is involved in three other FIRs. However, the fact remains that applicant has already been granted bail by the competent courts in all the three FIRs. Moreover, the detention order passed against him on the basis of said FIRs has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024, passed in HCP 43/2024.

The allegation against the applicant is that a transparent polythene pouch weighing approximately 10-15 grams of heroin-like substance came to be recovered from the dashboard of his Hyundai Creta Car in which he along with his associates were sitting at the time of search by the police party. It is for the prosecution to prove during the trial that the alleged contraband actually belonged to the applicant or he was in conscious possession of the same. The question of conscious possession and ownership of contraband is a matter of trial, which is to be conclusively decided after considering the prosecution evidence in its entirely. Further, since the quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered from the car falls within the intermediate category as defined under the NDPS Act, the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which applies to commercial quantities, is not attracted in the case. In such circumstances, the bail plea of the applicant is to be considered under the general principles underlying the grant of bail.

The seriousness of charge and criminal antecedents of an individual are, no doubt relevant considerations while considering a bail plea, but if it is reckoned as the only test or factor, it may tantamount to imbalancing the constitutional rights and would rather be recalibration of the scales of justice. Since investigation has already culminated in a charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused in the trial court and he is behind the bars since 08.04.2025 i.e. for more than three and a half months and all the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet are police officials, no fruitful purpose shall be served with continued incarceration of the applicant.

Hence, the present application is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a surety bond in the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, to the satisfaction of learned trial court and a bond of personal recognizance of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, subject, however, to the following conditions:

i) he shall not jump over bail and tamper the prosecution evidence;

ii) he shall not leave territorial jurisdiction of the UT of J&K without prior permission;

iii) he shall not, in any way, threaten or coerce the prosecution witnesses; and

iv) he shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing.

Bail application, accordingly, stands disposed of.