2016 (12) TMI 1886 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - cocaine - it is alleged that the accused persons procured cocaine from one UC (Uchee) and were indulged in sale of the substances - HELD THAT - So far the qualitative and quantitative report of impunitive substance seized from the possession of the petitioners is not placed on record by the Investigation Officer. As per the standing instructions 1.18 issued by the Central Government under the N.D.P.S. Act, these reports should have been procured within 30 days. As per the remand application filed by the Investigation Officer, this petitioner is no more required for custody for the purpose of further investigation. In the given circumstances, there is no impediment to allow the petition. The petitioner is granted bail on executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, on the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail granted in a criminal case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

In this judgment, the primary issue revolves around the grant of bail to the petitioner, who was accused in a criminal case registered under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case involved the seizure of cocaine from the petitioner and his co-accused, allegedly obtained for sale from a supplier known as UC (Uchee). The Investigation Officer conducted body searches and seized substantial amounts of cocaine from both accused individuals. However, the qualitative and quantitative reports of the seized substance were not presented by the Investigation Officer within the stipulated 30 days, as mandated under the N.D.P.S. Act. Despite the lack of these reports, the Investigation Officer stated in the remand application that the petitioner was no longer required for custody for further investigation, leading to the petition for bail.

The court considered the absence of the requisite reports and the Investigation Officer's stance on not needing the petitioner for custody any longer. Following this evaluation, the court granted bail to the petitioner in Crime No.0220/2016, registered by the Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bangalore. The bail was subject to the petitioner executing a self-bond amounting to Rs.2,00,000 with one surety, meeting specific conditions. These conditions included marking attendance at the police station on designated days, refraining from leaving Bengaluru, abstaining from illegal activities, and surrendering the passport to the court if not already seized by the Investigation Officer. The court's decision to grant bail was based on the circumstances presented, emphasizing the lack of impediments to allow the petition due to the Investigation Officer's stance and the absence of the required reports within the specified time frame under the N.D.P.S. Act.

In conclusion, the judgment showcases a detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the grant of bail in a criminal case involving the possession and alleged sale of narcotics under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The court's decision was influenced by the Investigation Officer's actions, the absence of essential reports, and the petitioner's compliance with the specified conditions for bail.