The Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Vashisth, has granted regular bail to a man accused of possessing 417 grams of heroin under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court’s order was passed after considering the antecedents of the accused, the nature and quantity of the substance involved, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

While examining the bail application, the court noted that the accused is married to the victim in a distinct case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The bench made it clear that this marital relationship does not influence the substantive evaluation of the NDPS charge. The observation was limited to the fact that the marriage reflects an opportunity for the accused to lead a settled family life and to pursue rehabilitation within society.

The judgment emphasized that personal circumstances, such as the prospect of a stable family environment, are relevant when assessing whether the accused is likely to misuse liberty if released on bail. The court held that the existence of a settled domestic life can be a factor indicating a lower risk of absconding or of engaging in further criminal activity, thereby satisfying the procedural requirements for bail under the NDPS Act.

At the same time, the bench reiterated that the marital tie has no evidentiary value in determining guilt or innocence with respect to the alleged possession of heroin. The court cautioned against conflating rehabilitative prospects with the merits of the substantive offence, stating that any consideration of personal background must remain strictly ancillary to the bail inquiry and must not affect the eventual trial on the NDPS charge.

The decision underscores the balancing approach adopted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in bail matters involving serious offences. While the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, the courts are permitted to weigh factors such as the accused’s antecedents, the likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the potential for rehabilitation. In this instance, the court found that the accused’s marriage to the POCSO victim, though legally unrelated to the narcotics case, pointed towards a possibility of reintegration into society, which tipped the balance in favour of granting bail.

Legal practitioners note that the ruling clarifies the scope of rehabilitative considerations in bail hearings under the NDPS Act. It affirms that personal circumstances can be taken into account to assess the risk of flight or obstruction of justice, provided that such considerations are expressly stated to be unrelated to the determination of guilt. The judgment also serves as a reminder that courts must maintain a clear demarcation between procedural bail factors and the substantive evaluation of criminal liability when dealing with overlapping personal relationships across different cases.

The order is expected to be cited in future bail applications where accused persons claim that family ties or marital stability should be weighed against the seriousness of the offence. It reinforces the principle that while the prospect of rehabilitation may influence the court’s discretion on bail, it cannot alter the evidentiary burden or the legal standards applicable to the underlying NDPS charge.