In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that individuals with multiple FIRs against them cannot meet the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail eligibility. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, presiding over the case, stated,
“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 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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.”
The court’s observation came while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Mohammad Rayyan Ansari, who was implicated in a case registered under Sections 21(c), 22(c), and 25 of the NDPS Act in Karnal, Haryana. The case emerged after 12,000 Alprazolam tablets were recovered from a co-accused named Pradeep. Pradeep’s disclosure statement revealed that he had procured the tablets from Ansari.
Ansari’s counsel contended that the co-accused’s statement held minimal evidentiary value. However, the police retorted, emphasizing that Ansari was a “habitual offender” with another NDPS Act case registered against him, in which he was currently absconding.
The court underscored that it was improbable for Ansari to be implicated in multiple FIRs
“at the whims and fancies of the investigating agency.”
The bench also referred to previous decisions, including one where the accused was granted anticipatory bail despite being implicated in another NDPS case. However, in another case, Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023), the High Court asserted that individuals with multiple FIRs over time were not entitled to bail concessions.
Given these considerations, the court concluded that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not be satisfied when multiple FIRs were lodged against an accused. Consequently, Ansari’s pre-arrest bail was dismissed.
The case, titled “Mohammad Rayyan Ansari v. State of Haryana,” saw appearances from Mohd. Uzair, Advocate for the petitioner, and Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana.
