Purer substance deadlier than adulterated narcotics: HC grants bail in drug-overdose case

Flagging a paradox in Punjab’s drug menace, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that addicts often survive on adulterated narcotics, but a sudden dose of purer substance can itself turn fatal.

“It is a ground reality that the drugs are often adulterated, and mostly the margin is the adulteration itself. However, sometimes a person might get a pure or mildly adulterated drug and consume the amount to which the addict is dependent, and on consuming more than the tolerance quantity, the possibility of such a person having an adverse influence on their health would always be there,” the bench remarked.

The assertion came in a case where the police received information on March 10, 2023, regarding a body lying in Sangrur Civil Hospital. During the inquiry, the police was informed by the doctor that the victim had died 8 to 10 hours earlier due to consumption of some intoxicant substance.

The matter was placed before the bench after an accused moved the high court seeking regular bail in the FIR registered at the B-Division police station in Amritsar for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and other offences under Sections 304, 201 and 34 of the IPC.

The bench, during the course of hearing, observed a perusal of the reply and pleadings in the matter pointed out that the cause of death was drug overdose. The court, at the same time, added: “At this stage, it is difficult to point out whether the petitioner forcibly administered an overdose of the drug to the deceased or if the deceased had taken it on his own.”

Turning to the law on bail, the bench observed: “The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice. The concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.”

The bench added that an important factor in deciding bail applications was the delay in concluding the trial: “Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights, not violated in such a case?” the court observed.

The court added personal liberty was a “very precious fundamental right” and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

“Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated,” the bench added, while allowing the plea.