The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a pre-conviction jail sentence cannot be a replica of a post-conviction sentence

Emphasizing that bail should not be denied merely as a punitive measure that serves as a pre-trial hearing, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that prior imprisonment cannot be a replica of subsequent punishment as such an approach runs counter to the judiciary’s obligations. Uphold the basic principles of justice and equality in the bail process.

The observation came in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where the Haryana Police had in August 2024 recovered 9.72 grams of heroin from Mohit and 8.16 grams of heroin from the possession of Ankit, who was present at a rented farm. Petitioner – Yogendra at Gurugram. The petitioner had approached the High Court after his regular bail application had been dismissed thrice by the lower court, mainly relying on the petitioner’s precedent. But the other co-accused were granted bail.

Granting bail to the petitioner, Justice Anoop Chitkara said in his order on December 17, “Although legal systems uphold the principle that crimes, not individuals, are to be condemned, even though habitual offenders form a playground. Swamps, and serious criminal histories, slushier puddles, And a recidivist often operates on uncertain ground, where the weight of one’s significant criminal record creates increasingly challenging territory 6, as the arrest is generally unjustified, or bail would generally be unavoidable, the court should not deny bail merely to serve as a pre-trial deterrent. Pre-trial imprisonment cannot be a replica of the post-conviction sentence The approach runs counter to the judiciary’s obligation to uphold the fundamental principles of justice and equity in bail proceedings.”

Pointing out that bail is related to pre-trial curtailment of liberty on ex parte charges which demand the highest priority in judicial decision, Justice Chitaka said, “…trial courts, even in cases where bail is normally warranted, often show reluctance or reluctance to grant bail, and in all probability, they This approach cannot be entirely blamed. It will always be better for us, the hierarchical court, to introspect Such reluctance increases the burden on the High Courts, where the influx of bail applications, i.e., statutory criminal appeals, and petitions for quashing, results in significant delays. Legal professionals are happy to surf the underlying fault lines, and the bar is oblivious to the implications . This creates a domino effect, depriving lawyers of the necessary experience in the criminal field, and justice is a potential casualty of this cascade.”

“Prolonged imprisonment, ordinarily, runs counter to the most precious fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such circumstances, conditional liberty should override the statutory bar created under Article 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the NDPS. Proceedings,” he said.

The order states that the petitioner was arrested on 11th August and applying the general principles for bail with sketch evidence. At first glance Analyzing the nature of the charges, and other factors specific to this case, there would be no justification for further pre-trial imprisonment.