Grant of Bail in Chetan Aggarwal vs. State of Punjab: A Detailed Analysis

Introduction

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment in Chetan Aggarwal vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M-62037-2024) highlights critical aspects of bail jurisprudence in India, particularly under the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and other related laws. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Vashisth on January 15, 2025, explores the balance between an accused’s liberty and the State’s interest in tackling serious crimes.

Case Background

The petitioner, Chetan Aggarwal, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with FIR No. 147, dated September 20, 2024. The FIR alleged violations under Sections 21-C, 20, 27-A, and 29/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, and Sections 2/9/39/44/48-A/49/49-A/49-B/50/51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The case was registered at Police Station Special Task Force, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

The petitioner’s arrest occurred subsequent to the filing of the FIR, based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Harvinder Singh. Notably, no contraband or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner at the time of arrest.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Absence of Direct Involvement: The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was not named in the FIR, nor was he present at the scene of the crime.
• Basis of Arrest: The petitioner was arrested solely on the disclosure statement of Harvinder Singh, which lacks corroborative evidence.
• Extended Incarceration: The petitioner has been in judicial custody since October 30, 2024, and is not required for further investigation.

For the State

• Alleged Active Role: The State contended that the petitioner was an active member of a group engaged in illicit activities under the NDPS Act.
• Seriousness of Offenses: Given the gravity of the offenses, bail was opposed to prevent potential misuse of liberty by the petitioner.

Court’s Observations and Findings

Prima Facie Assessment

The Court acknowledged the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crimes. It emphasized that:

• The petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR.
• No contraband or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner’s possession.

Right to Liberty

Justice Sanjay Vashisth underscored the principle that indefinite detention based solely on unsubstantiated allegations violates the accused’s fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conditions for Bail

While granting bail, the Court imposed specific conditions to ensure that the petitioner does not:

1. Threaten or influence prosecution witnesses.
2. Misuse the bail concession by engaging in similar activities.

The Court also clarified that its observations should not influence the trial proceedings and that bail could be revoked if future violations occur.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces several key principles:

1. Presumption of Innocence: An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
2. Disclosure Statements: Arrests based solely on uncorroborated disclosure statements lack evidentiary value.
3. Bail as a Rule: In cases where evidence is inadequate, bail should not be denied merely due to the gravity of the alleged offense.
4. Judicial Oversight: Courts must ensure that conditions imposed during bail are practical and enforceable.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Chetan Aggarwal reflects a balanced approach that upholds individual liberty while safeguarding the interests of justice. The judgment serves as a precedent for cases involving serious offenses under stringent laws like the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence before prolonged incarceration.

References

1. Chetan Aggarwal vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-62037-2024, Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided on January 15, 2025.
2. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
4. Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
5. Arms Act, 1959.
6. Article 21, Constitution of India.