2014 (10) TMI 920 - HC - Indian Laws

Concession of regular bail seeked - NDPS Act - Held that - Since the recovery has already been effected and provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable on account of non- commercial quantity as prescribed for controlled substance like Pseudo Ephedrine and he was not found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.241 dated December 7, 2013, under Sections 21, 22, 25-A, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 379, 411, 420, 465, 467, 468,471, 120-B IPC and Sections 24, 54, 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Patiala on his furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for regular bail in a case involving multiple charges under NDPS Act, IPC, and Arms Act.
2. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the controlled substances recovered.
3. Consideration of the commercial quantity of contraband in determining bail eligibility.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under various sections of the NDPS Act, IPC, and Arms Act. The FIR alleged involvement in the production and distribution of illegal substances. The petitioner, although not named in the FIR, was implicated based on a disclosure statement by another individual. The recovery included Pseudo Ephedrine and an intoxicating powder, leading to the petitioner's arrest. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner's alleged association with a drug-dealing gang.

The petitioner's counsel argued against the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to the substances recovered, claiming that the quantity did not meet the commercial threshold. Comparisons were drawn with co-accused individuals who had been granted bail under similar circumstances. The Court considered the non-commercial quantity of the contraband, particularly Pseudo Ephedrine, and the absence of possession of a commercial quantity. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, specifically Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in the context of the substances recovered and the quantity involved. The decision to grant bail was influenced by the Court's assessment of the commercial nature of the contraband and the petitioner's specific circumstances in relation to the charges.