HC takes judicial notice of Punjab drug menace, calls cross-border trafficking an ‘existential threat’

Taking judicial notice of the “alarming magnitude and pervasive spread of the drug menace”, particularly in the sensitive border regions of the state, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the unabated influx of “heavy commercial quantities of psychotropic substances” across international borders poses an “existential threat” to public health, national security and the socio-economic fabric of society. Justice Alok Jain also cautioned that courts dealing with organised cross-border drug cartels must exercise “heightened circumspection and strict scrutiny” and carefully balance individual liberty against the larger societal interest.

The assertions came as Justice Jain dismissed twin anticipatory bail pleas filed by an accused in two matters registered by Amritsar Narcotics Control Bureau. “Clandestine narco-syndicates operating in these vulnerable border belts exploit geographical proximity to run deeply entrenched supply chains and launder illicit proceeds,” the bench asserted.

Referring to the approach required in such prosecutions, Justice Jain held: “When dealing with cases emanating from such border-centric drug cartels — especially those involving commercial quantities of contraband and organised networks — the courts are duty-bound to exercise heightened circumspection and strict scrutiny.”

The bench added individual liberty was required to be carefully balanced against the overriding societal interest, “ensuring that the stringent statutory mandate and legislative intent behind Section 37 of the NDPS Act are strictly upheld to prevent the frustration of ongoing investigations”.

On the merits, Justice Jain took note of NCB’s submission that seizures comprised 2.950 kg of opium, 5.504 kg of methamphetamine and 8.740 kg of heroin, all falling within the statutory threshold of commercial quantity.

NCB was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rajiv Sharma (Hisarwale), along with advocates Vinayak Atre and Indu Bala Sharma. Justice Jain added the court could not lose sight of the fact that the drug menace in the state of Punjab was at its peak and the larger aspect was required to be seen, for which thorough investigation was required. “While dealing with the investigation of such kind and the intelligent and disciplined criminals who execute such offences, it is likely to have some minor discrepancies,” the court observed.

Recognising the specialised role of the investigating agency, Justice Jain observed: “NCB is a specialised authority to look into such crimes, however, certain minor lapses cannot form basis to make the petitioner entitled for grant the extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory bail.”

The bench, however, clarified that these observations should not be construed as condoning any illegality on the part of investigating officers. “It is duly recorded here that the above observation does not give a clean chit to the Authorities to violate the provisions of law with any impunity,” the court said, adding that “the authorities, if find, that the officer has not acted in accordance with law will be at liberty to take appropriate steps against him. However, at this stage; the said issue is left open”.

Declining the relief of anticipatory bail, Justice Jain held that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was of “utmost importance” particularly because huge cache of drugs recovered was linked to the petitioner and co-accused. There was specific allegation that the petitioner had facilitated the lifting of the entire illegal cross-border drugs consignment and had “previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act”. His custodial interrogation was necessary “to unearth the entire financial trail, conspiracy and the nexus of all nominated accused with the cross border smuggling of drugs”.

The bench further observed: “In a crime such as being investigated by NCB and the prima facie role being attributed to the petitioner makes it incumbent that his custodial interrogation will be of extreme importance.”

It reiterated that “the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be of grave importance, at this stage, to ensure that the investigation in this case comes to its logical end”.

Concluding that no ground was made out for granting the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail, Justice Jain held: “In light of the above, this court does not find any ground to grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the present petitions are dismissed.”