2017 (6) TMI 252 - HC - Indian Laws

Proof of juvenility - Grant of regular bail in complaint case registered under Sections 21, 23, 25, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act read with Customs Act, 1962 and Arms Act, 1959 - Held that - In view of Section 37 of the Act, petitioner is stated to be in the age group of 16-18 years as on the date of commission of offence. The child between the aforesaid age group cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view the amended provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for which an assessment is to be made by the Magistrate in respect of mental faculty of the accused. The grant of bail to Chanan Singh @ Channa is in no way entitles the petitioner for the said relief. The confessional statement of the petitioner ultimately led the DRI officers to arrest Prakash Singh @ Mintu along with huge consignment of narcotic drugs weighing 30.498 Kgs of heroin, one pistol, 61 live cartridges and 4 empty magazines. There are no reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is not involved in the offence and there is no likelihood of his committing any offence while on bail at this stage. The juvenility of the petitioner is yet to be determined, therefore, keeping in view the involvement of the petitioner and taking into consideration, the recovery of huge quantity of heroin, at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to concession of regular bail. The present petition stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for grant of regular bail in a complaint case under NDPS Act, Customs Act, and Arms Act.
2. Juvenility of the petitioner in relation to the offence committed.
3. Involvement of the petitioner in the offence based on confessional statement.
4. Entitlement of the petitioner to regular bail considering the recovery of a significant quantity of heroin.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under various sections of the NDPS Act, Customs Act, and Arms Act. The petitioner claimed to be a minor at the time of the alleged recovery and had been in custody since a specific date. The complaint was filed based on information received regarding the smuggling of narcotic drugs by an individual, leading to a raid where a substantial amount of heroin, a pistol, cartridges, and magazines were recovered. The petitioner's involvement in disclosing the whereabouts of the main accused and accompanying the raiding party was highlighted. The court considered the seriousness of the charges and the circumstances of the case before dismissing the petition for regular bail.

2. The petitioner's age group fell between 16-18 years at the time of the offence, raising the question of juvenility. However, the court noted that the petitioner could not be treated as a juvenile under the amended provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 without a proper assessment by the Magistrate regarding the mental faculties of the accused.

3. The confessional statement made by the petitioner played a crucial role in leading the authorities to the arrest of the main accused and the recovery of a substantial quantity of narcotic drugs and related items. The court emphasized that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not involved in the offence, indicating the seriousness of the petitioner's complicity as per the statement recorded under the NDPS Act.

4. Despite the petitioner's claim of juvenility and the lack of a formal determination in that regard, the court considered the gravity of the offence and the significant recovery of heroin. Given the circumstances and the petitioner's involvement as indicated by the confessional statement, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of regular bail at that stage. The decision to dismiss the petition was based on the specific details and the seriousness of the allegations, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.