2019 (7) TMI 1551 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - narcotic psychotropic tablets - Section 67 of the NDPS Act - applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - As per the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is mandatory that before the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit the same again while on bail. As far as the present case is concerned, accused Bhaskar Khatnani in his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, disclosed that he knew Pulkit Kumar for the last 8-9 months. Bhaskar Khatnani further disclosed that 4-5 months ago, Pulkit Kumar told him that he was having online orders for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances from the USA and asked Bhaskar Khatnani that if he could supply the same, he would place the order upon him since Bhaskar Khatnani was aware that Gaurav Mehta was supplying medicines made from narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to the USA by illegal means - It is prima facie evident from the NCB investigation that all the accused persons are part of a conspiracy and they are connected with each other in view of their respective statements as well as from the recoveries made by the NCB. It is evident that the NCB seized Narcotic Drugs/ Psychotropic substances from two different locations in Delhi from the possession of two persons. These seizures were made on the basis of disclosure statements of Gaurav Mehta and Bhaskar Khatnani which also prove that there was an organized network working behind the sales of Narcotic Drugs/Psychotropic substance, as the seizures of the NCB related to the present matter involves commercial quantity, which is covered under the Chapter V- A of NDPS Act 1985 - There is no doubt that the anticipatory bail may be granted when there is material on record to show that prosecution was inherently doubtful or where there is material on record to show that there is a possibility of false implication. However, when the element of criminality is involved; the custodial interrogation is required and/or the other aspects and facts are required to be unfolded in investigation, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. There are nothing on record, at this stage, to satisfy this Court that there are grounds, or more to say, reasonable grounds, believing that the petitioner is not likely to commit such an offence again and is also not likely to commit the same while on bail - The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also required in this case, specifically, to unearth and connect the wires of conspiracy, more so, their modus operandi as well as involvement of the petitioner and other persons. Taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner as well as transfer of huge funds and nature and gravity of the accusations, the stage of the investigation and the alleged role of the petitioner, this Court does not find any merit in the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner - bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Involvement under Sections 8(C), 21(C), 23, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
3. Recovery of narcotic psychotropic substances.
4. Statements and disclosures under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
5. Financial transactions linked to the accused.
6. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
7. Conspiracy and involvement of multiple accused.
8. Legal precedents concerning bail in NDPS cases.
9. Custodial interrogation requirement.
10. Conduct and non-cooperation of the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Anticipatory Bail:
The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to a complaint case under Sections 8(C), 21(C), 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act for the grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Involvement under NDPS Act:
The case involves the recovery of narcotic psychotropic substances, specifically Tramadol and Lorazepam, which were found in quantities exceeding the commercial threshold, thereby invoking stringent provisions under the NDPS Act.

3. Recovery of Narcotic Psychotropic Substances:
The prosecution's case is based on the recovery of various narcotic substances from parcels destined for the USA and Canada, and from a warehouse. The substances included Tramadol, Lorazepam, and other psychotropic tablets.

4. Statements and Disclosures:
During the investigation, Gaurav Mehta, in his voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, disclosed the involvement of other accused, including the petitioner. The statements revealed a network of supply and distribution of narcotic substances.

5. Financial Transactions:
The financial investigation revealed significant transactions between the accounts of the accused Pulkit Kumar and the petitioner, amounting to ?69,36,943/-. This financial link was used to establish the petitioner's involvement in the illegal trade.

6. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act:
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, particularly for offenses involving commercial quantities. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit the offense while on bail.

7. Conspiracy and Multiple Accused:
The investigation revealed a conspiracy involving multiple accused. The statements and recoveries indicated a coordinated effort to distribute narcotic substances. Legal precedents underline that conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and the actions of the accused.

8. Legal Precedents:
The judgment referenced several Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing the difficulty in obtaining direct evidence in conspiracy cases, the necessity of stringent conditions for bail under the NDPS Act, and the importance of custodial interrogation in unraveling the conspiracy.

9. Custodial Interrogation:
The court highlighted the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy, the modus operandi, and the involvement of all accused, including the petitioner.

10. Conduct and Non-Cooperation:
The petitioner was found to be non-cooperative, with non-bailable warrants issued against him and repeated notices ignored. This non-cooperation, along with the gravity of the accusations and the stage of the investigation, led the court to deny anticipatory bail.

Conclusion:
The anticipatory bail application was dismissed due to the serious nature of the offenses, the commercial quantity of narcotic substances involved, the financial transactions linking the petitioner to the illegal trade, the need for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner's non-cooperation with the investigation. The court emphasized that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met, and the investigation was still at an initial stage, necessitating further inquiry.