2017 (11) TMI 741 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular Bail under Sections 21 (c), 23(c) read with Section 50-A of the NDPS Act - Held that - From the perusal of the record it transpires that the petitioner was apprehended from the spot by the raiding team after he took the delivery of the alleged parcel which contained 185 grams of cocaine. At the time of the search, the respondents have complied with the provisions envisaged under the statue and served him notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and also conducted the search in presence of independent witnesses and from 24.06.2013 he is in custody. The case is at the stage of prosecution evidence and the prosecution has already examined 19 witnesses out of 21 witnesses and trial is on its last legs. Further the charged offence is serious in nature which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to twenty years. Moreover, the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice being a foreign national cannot be ruled out. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offences alleged, this court does not deem it a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of Regular Bail under Sections 21 (c), 23(c) read with Section 50-A of the NDPS Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a case involving the interception of a parcel containing prohibited drugs. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner received the parcel containing contraband and was subsequently arrested. The defense argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, emphasizing clean antecedents and lack of criminal record. Reference was made to relevant case laws supporting the defense's position. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offense, the quantity of contraband seized, and the likelihood of the petitioner absconding or committing similar offenses in the future.

The court referred to the principles established in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, emphasizing the need for judicious discretion in granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The court noted that the petitioner was apprehended with a significant amount of cocaine, the prosecution had followed statutory procedures, and the trial was at an advanced stage with most witnesses examined. Considering the gravity of the offense, the possibility of the petitioner fleeing as a foreign national, and the stage of the trial, the court concluded that it was not a suitable case for granting bail.

In light of the above factors, including the seriousness of the offense, the stage of the trial, and the risk of the petitioner absconding, the court dismissed the petition for bail. It was clarified that the observations made in the order would not impact the merit of the case, emphasizing the decision's limited scope.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the grounds for the dismissal of the bail petition, addressing both the defense's arguments and the prosecution's concerns while applying established legal principles to determine the appropriateness of granting bail in the given circumstances.