2005 (3) TMI 775 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery and seizure of narcotic drugs.
2. Voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
3. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
4. Conscious possession of narcotic drugs.
5. Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act.
6. Arguments and precedents cited by both parties.
7. Court's satisfaction regarding the petitioner's guilt and likelihood of committing an offense while on bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Recovery and Seizure of Narcotic Drugs:
The prosecution's case is based on a secret information received by the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) on 05.07.2004, leading to the apprehension of a blue Maruti 800 car carrying narcotic drugs. The petitioner and another individual were apprehended, and a polythene bag containing 875 grams of heroin and 1.25 kilograms of opium was recovered from under the seat where the petitioner was sitting.

2. Voluntary Statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:
The petitioner allegedly made a voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, admitting the recovery and seizure of the narcotic drugs. The petitioner stated that he had received the polythene bag from an individual named Ashok, on the instructions of his cousin Balbir, without knowing its contents.

3. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for Granting Bail:
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes restrictions on granting bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.

4. Conscious Possession of Narcotic Drugs:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner did not have conscious possession of the narcotic drugs, as he was unaware of the contents of the polythene bag. The counsel cited several decisions of the Supreme Court to support this argument, emphasizing that the petitioner's statement was exculpatory.

5. Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act:
The State's counsel relied on Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which presume the existence of a culpable mental state and the commission of an offense unless proven otherwise. The State argued that the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle and having admitted the recovery, should not be granted bail.

6. Arguments and Precedents Cited by Both Parties:
The State's counsel cited three decisions: Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, and Babua alias Tazmul Hossain v. State of Orissa, to support the argument that the petitioner had conscious possession and should not be granted bail. The petitioner's counsel cited Sanjay Dutt v. State and Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, arguing that the petitioner did not have conscious possession and should be granted bail.

7. Court's Satisfaction Regarding the Petitioner's Guilt and Likelihood of Committing an Offense While on Bail:
The court examined the materials available, including the petitioner's statement and the circumstances of the recovery. The court found that the petitioner's statement did not constitute a confession and indicated a lack of knowledge about the contents of the polythene bag. The court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty of the offenses charged and that he was not likely to commit any offense while on bail.

Conclusion:
The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court. The application for bail was disposed of accordingly.