‘Court Cannot Be a Mute Spectator’: Punjab & Haryana HC Flags Misuse of NDPS Act, Seeks State’s Response

Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken serious note of allegations regarding misuse of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), particularly the practice of implicating individuals without direct recovery, based solely on disclosure statements.

In an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that there has been a “flood of NDPS litigations” in recent times — many involving non-commercial quantities of substances like heroin, etizolam, alprazolam, etc., where multiple people are added as accused despite no direct recovery from them.

The Court cautioned that it “cannot be a mute spectator” and directed the State of Punjab to file an affidavit responding to the petitioner’s claims.

Background of the Case

The case concerned recovery of 90 etizolam tablets weighing 8.280 grams from a co-accused, allegedly a commercial quantity. The petitioner was named only on the co-accused’s disclosure statement.

The petitioner contended:

• Each strip of 15 tablets cost around ₹30, making the total value of recovered contraband less than ₹100.
• It had become a modus operandi to inflate NDPS case statistics to present a strong anti-drug narrative ahead of elections, citing the State’s campaign slogan “Yudh Nasheyan Virudh”.
• He was willing to cooperate with the investigation and had no prior criminal record.

The State argued that the petitioner’s name emerged during interrogation but admitted that he had no past criminal involvement and could not dispute the cost of the recovered substance.

Court’s Observations & Directions

Justice Moudgil noted:

• While the recovered quantity was technically “commercial,” the cost factor and surrounding circumstances raised concerns worth examining.
• If the State fails to ensure a safe environment for citizens, the Court can suo motu intervene and order remedial measures.
• The pattern of similar cases emerging in the last month warranted scrutiny.

The Court granted interim anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to:

• Join the investigation within a week.
• Furnish personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
• Comply with Section 482(2) BNSS conditions.

Legalspace Take

This case highlights two critical issues:

• Over-reliance on disclosure statements without independent recovery, risking misuse of stringent NDPS provisions.
• Judicial oversight as a safeguard when political or administrative motivations may influence criminal investigations.

For legal practitioners, the judgment underlines the importance of scrutinizing both quantity and valuation of seized substances when framing defense strategies. It also serves as a reminder that courts are willing to question systemic patterns of misuse.

Empower Your Legal Research with Legalspace

At LegalSpace, we simplify the complex:

• Use Research+ AI to instantly locate relevant NDPS precedents.
• Organize and manage case files with Matterwise AI.
• Access ready-to-use legal document templates via Template X.

Stay ahead in your practice — explore how Legalspace can save you time and enhance your litigation strategy.