2015 (12) TMI 1084 - HC - Indian Laws

Enlargement on bail in FIR of NDPS Act, 420,467,468,471 IPC at Police State Fatehgarh Sahib - Held that - Whether or not the petitioner deserves the concession of bail, it appears to us that even in a case where two views are possible, the judicial discretion should tilt towards the liberty of a suspect not only because of the bail as a rule or jail as an exception but also in view of Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the one s liberty. Keeping such preface behind, we are of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of bail for the reasons that (i) the petitioner is neither found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act nor has he a track record of involvement under other penal laws; (ii) there is no likelihood of his tampering with the prosecution evidence as the two witnesses of his disclosure statement are police officials only; (iii) the mere recovery of a controlled substance would fall short of attracting Section 37(1)(b)(ii) unless a definite chain to link the culmination of such controlled substance into conversion of a synthetic drug of commercial quantity is established; (iv) the applicability of rigors of the aforesaid provision in the instant case is thus a debatable issue; (v) the allegation of the petitioner as a conduit of international cartel of drug racketeers is truly serious and cannot be overlooked save that the prosecution is able to lay its hands to any such evidence; (vi) no sooner such evidence is recovered, the prosecution would be well within its right to seek the cancellation of bail keeping in view the enormity of the offence; (vii) the petitioner is incarcerated from last about 2 years; (viii) the petitioner s name surfaced only in the alleged confessional statement of Jagdish Singh @ Bhola. The veracity of that statement is yet to be tested by the Special Court; (ix) the trial period is also unpredictable due to involvement of several persons. For the reasons afore-stated and without expressing any views on merits, we allow this petition and direct to release the petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM concerned where the petitioner is presently lodged.

Summary

Issues:
Enlargement on bail in NDPS Act case involving controlled substances and international drug cartel; Consideration of bail application based on legal grounds and evidence; Interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act; Judicial discretion in granting bail; Petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought bail in a case involving the NDPS Act and other criminal charges. The FIR alleged his involvement in an organized drug cartel, with significant recoveries of controlled substances. Previous bail applications were rejected due to the seriousness of the charges and the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act. The petitioner challenged his implication based on confessional statements and procedural irregularities, claiming false implication and lack of legal sanctity in the evidence against him.

The court considered the petitioner's arguments against the prosecution's claims of his active involvement in the drug trafficking gang and his knowledge of controlled substances. The prosecution contended that the petitioner's role in the drug cartel, including past involvement in drug manufacturing, warranted denial of bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized the importance of liberty and judicial discretion in bail matters, leaning towards granting bail when in doubt, especially under Article 21 of the Constitution.

After evaluating the arguments and evidence, the court found that the petitioner did not have a prior record under the NDPS Act or other laws, reducing the likelihood of tampering with evidence. The court noted the debatable nature of applying Section 37(1)(b) in the case and the seriousness of the international drug cartel allegations. The court balanced these factors with the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, the untested veracity of confessional statements, and the complexity of the trial involving multiple individuals.

Ultimately, the court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need to safeguard individual liberties. The petitioner was directed to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court refrained from expressing views on the case's merits, highlighting the need for fair trial proceedings and the prosecution's right to seek bail cancellation upon new evidence discovery.