Palwal drug case: High Court cancels bail, raps trial court for overstepping jurisdiction

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 11

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped a subordinate court for overstepping its jurisdiction and describing without basis the probe in a drugs case as tainted and doubtful. The Bench asserted it was “deeply appalled” by the observations by the trial court in its impugned orders granting bail to two accused.

The conclusion that the investigation was “tainted and doubtful” was “utterly unfounded” as even the challan had not been presented at that time. “It is incomprehensible how the trial court could reach these conclusions without any supportive evidence/material on record, relying solely on the unsubstantiated assertions made by the defence counsel,” Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul asserted.

The observations came during the hearing of two petitions filed by the state of Haryana, challenging the orders dated August 18, 2022, and August 6, 2022, passed by the Palwal Additional Sessions Judge, vide which the accused were extended the concession of regular bail in a case registered on April 16, 2022, under the provisions of the NDPS Act at Sadar police station in Palwal.

Justice Kaul also set aside the impugned orders and cancelled the concession of bail granted to the accused before directing them to surrender within seven days. The Bench said it was established that a court hearing a bail application was permitted to peruse the evidence and other material on record. But the court’s role at the juncture was strictly limited to assessing whether the accused was entitled to bail.

Justice Kaul observed that the court’s role did not extend to conducting a detailed investigation or examination of the facts or rendering comments on the merits of the case. Engaging in such an analysis, especially before the presentation of the challan, was beyond the purview of a bail application hearing and could prejudice the case for both the accused and the prosecution.

Justice Kaul said the trial court overstepped its jurisdiction by prematurely delving into an evaluation of the substantive issues.

“This not only undermines the judicial process, but also jeopardises the integrity of the trial. The actions of the court, as reflected in the impugned orders, are not only procedurally inappropriate, but also legally untenable, setting a dangerous precedent that could erode the foundational principles of judicial fairness.”

He added that the evaluation of the merits of the case was required to be carried out after the trial commenced following the presentation of the challan, where a comprehensive examination of evidence and arguments would be undertaken.