The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to Congress leader Sukhpal Singh Khaira in a 2015 case under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act on Thursday. Justice Anoop Chitkara recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the Congress MLA was not guilty of the allegations relating to smuggling of drugs.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that the possibility of the accused influencing the probe, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions.
In the case, the State had moved an application in 2017 under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon Khaira as an accused. Reportedly, the application was allowed and the decision of the trial court was later upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In February last year, the apex court stayed the trial court order, taking cognizance of the fact that a Constitution Bench in 2022 held that once the trial judge passes an order of sentence, it does not have the power to pass an order under Section 319 CrPC.
Following the Supreme Court order, the trial court dropped the proceedings against the Congress leader but permitted the investigating agency to continue with the probe to enable them to file a chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC.
Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira was arrested on September 28, 2023. In the High Court, the Congress leader’s counsel contended that he was arrested only because he had parted ways with the Aam Aadmi Party which is now the ruling party in Punjab.
Taking note of the submissions, Justice Chitkara at the outset noted that since the case involves the commercial quantity of contraband, Khaira would have to meet the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires the Court to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor before a decision in the bail application. The Section 37 of the NDPS Act also states that the Court must satisfy itself that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is neither guilty of the offence nor likely to commit the offence while on bail.
The bench remarked that the expression reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds. It added that the expression contemplates substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
It underlined that even on fulfilling one of the conditions, the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offense, the Court still cannot give a finding on the assurance that the accused is not likely to commit any such crime again. The Court further reasoned that the grant or denial of bail for possessing commercial quantity would vary from case to case, depending upon its facts.
The High Court also opined that it cannot take into consideration the evidence collected and produced before the trial court till the decision of application under Section 319 CrPC. Nonetheless, it clarified the evidence collected after the decision can be taken into consideration for deciding the bail application.
Based on the evidence, absence of any recovery of any incriminating evidence during Khaira’s custodial interrogation and the evidentiary value of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, the Court said that it can be inferred that for the purpose of satisfying the rigors of section 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be said to be prima facie guilty for any allegations, and its most likely effect on the final outcome would be sufficient for satisfaction of conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Consecutively, the High Court granted bail to Khaira subject to several terms and conditions including surrender of any weapons.