2013 (7) TMI 1006 - HC - Customs

Bail application - offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27A, 28, 29, 30 and 38 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - illegal exports/smuggling of Narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances by courier mode - keeping in view the nature of contravention, whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail? - Held that - when rules are made to permit and regulate operations of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, they cannot be in contravention of Section 8 of the act and the same need to be construed essentially keeping in mind exception to Section 8. Any other interpretation would make the provisions of the Act subservient to the rules and orders. The huge quantity of psychotropic substances seized from the accused even when is not mentioned in Schedule I it would still become an offence under Section 8(C) read with Section 22 and he cannot be enlarged on regular bail for not having fallen under any of the exceptions carved out in the provision itself. Interpretation otherwise than this would render not only the Schedule to the Act otiose but would frustrate the very objective of the Act, particularly keeping in mind huge quantity of psychotropic substance seized from the applicant. No case is made out to exercise discretionary powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the applicant - application dismissed - decided against applicant.

Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Offences under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. Role and involvement of the applicant in the alleged offences.
4. Previous judgments and orders regarding co-accused.
5. Legality and validity of forensic reports and testing methods.
6. Seriousness and gravity of the offence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with NDPS Special Case No.5 of 2012 registered with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad. The applicant's counsel argued that the charge sheet was filed on 31.05.2012, and the applicant had been in jail since 17.12.2011. The applicant assured availability for trial and requested bail with conditions.

2. Offences under the NDPS Act and IPC:
The case involved offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27A, 28, 29, 30, and 38 of the NDPS Act, 1985, read with Section 120B of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused were involved in the illegal export/smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances using courier mode through Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad.

3. Role and Involvement of the Applicant:
The learned APP opposed the bail application, drawing parallels between the applicant's role and that of co-accused Pramod Narhari Manjrekar, whose bail application had been previously rejected. The court considered the applicant's involvement in the context of the entire operation, including the recovery of 37 packets of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride from courier parcels and 432 kgs of the same substance from the manufacturing unit, M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Ltd.

4. Previous Judgments and Orders Regarding Co-accused:
The court referred to previous orders rejecting bail applications of co-accused Sujal Vijaybhai Patel and Pramod Narhari Manjrekar. The court emphasized the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which necessitates satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and will not commit the offence again while on bail. The court also highlighted that exceptions under Section 8 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the applicant.

5. Legality and Validity of Forensic Reports and Testing Methods:
The applicant's counsel challenged the forensic reports from the Directorate of Forensic Science (DFS), Gandhinagar, arguing discrepancies with reports from reputed institutions like Haffkin Institute, Maharashtra, and guidelines from the United Nations. However, the court upheld the credibility and legality of the DFS reports, noting that the institution is recognized by law and has a reputable standing.

6. Seriousness and Gravity of the Offence:
The court underscored the serious nature and gravity of the offence, involving a substantial quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride valued at Rs. 432 crores in the illicit international market. The court noted the attempts by the accused to manipulate the case through different testing methods and institutions, which delayed the trial. Given the severe punishment prescribed for such offences, the court was not inclined to grant bail.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail application, stating that no case was made out to exercise discretionary powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in favor of the applicant. The application was accordingly dismissed, and the rule was discharged.

← Previous Next →