2001 (5) TMI 944 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Whether the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences under the NDPS Act justifies the denial of anticipatory bail.
3. The applicability of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act in granting anticipatory bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, fearing arrest by officers from the Central Bureau of Narcotics and the Assistant Commissioner (Customs). The petitioner was implicated in a case where one of the accused, Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, alleged that he had procured Acetic-Anhydride from the petitioner. Despite Aggarwal retracting his statement, the respondents opposed the bail, citing the need for further investigation. The court noted that anticipatory bail is a procedural provision concerned with personal liberty, and the applicant must show reasonable grounds for apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence. The Supreme Court's guidelines in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab were referenced, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should not be granted if it appears likely that the applicant will flee from justice or impede the investigation.

2. Petitioner's Involvement in Alleged Offences under the NDPS Act:
The respondents argued that the petitioner was involved in the illegal supply of Acetic-Anhydride, a controlled substance under the NDPS Act. They cited a voluntary statement by Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, which implicated the petitioner. The court acknowledged that the retraction of Aggarwal's statement could only be evaluated during the trial. The respondents suspected that the petitioner violated Clauses 3, 4, and 5 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993, constituting offences under Sections 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act. The court found the respondents' suspicions prima facie valid and noted that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation, which would be impeded by granting anticipatory bail.

3. Applicability of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act:
The court highlighted that Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail for offences punishable with imprisonment of five years or more. The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Given that the petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act, which carry a punishment of up to ten years, the court found that the limitations under Section 37(1)(b) applied. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, and the court was not convinced that the petitioner was not guilty or that he would not commit further offences if granted bail.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would impede the investigation and reduce the interrogation to a mere ritual. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, considering the nature of the offences, the need for custodial interrogation, and the statutory limitations under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. The application was thus dismissed.