2018 (1) TMI 124 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of regular bail - purchase of prohibited drugs - illegal trade of prohibited drugs - Since occupants of the vehicle including present bail petitioner were unable to produce valid papers with regard to the transportation/possession of aforesaid psychotropic substance police confiscated the contraband and since then the bail petitioner is in custody - Held that - this Court sees substantial force in the argument of Mr. Rana learned counsel representing the petitioner that at this stage there is nothing on record to infer that the bail petitioner purchased prohibited drugs i.e. codeine phosphate for illegal trade of the same rather record itself suggests that same was purchased on the basis of licence issued in favour of the bail petitioner. Whether licence possessed by the bail petitioner was meant for purchase/sale of prohibited drugs or not is a question of trial and same shall be determined by the court below on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the Investigating Agency but definitely at this stage there is nothing on record which could compel this Court to conclude that bail petitioner purchased the aforesaid drugs for indulging in illegal trade of the same. The Court sees no reason to keep the bail petitioner in jail for an indefinite period especially when he has already suffered for more than seven months. Needless to say guilt if any of the petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law and as such his freedom cannot be ordered to curtailed for an indefinite period during the pendency of the trial. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC for offenses under NDPS Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Analysis:
1. Background: The bail petition was filed for the grant of regular bail in a case involving offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioner was found in possession of contraband during a police interception.

2. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner's counsel argued that the drugs were purchased legally for sale in a shop, and the quantity did not constitute a commercial amount. It was also highlighted that another co-accused had been granted bail, and there was no risk of the petitioner fleeing justice.

3. State's Opposition: The Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offense and the possibility of the petitioner's involvement in illegal drug trade. Concerns were raised about the petitioner belonging to another state and the potential flight risk.

4. Court's Evaluation: The court examined the evidence and arguments presented. It noted that the petitioner purchased the drugs against a valid license, although the license was not valid for prohibited drugs. The court found no conclusive evidence of the petitioner's intent for illegal trade.

5. Decision: After considering the facts and legal principles, the court granted bail to the petitioner. Conditions were imposed, including attendance at court hearings, non-interference with evidence, and seeking permission before leaving India. The court warned of bail cancellation in case of misuse.

6. Legal Precedents: The court referred to legal precedents emphasizing that bail is not punitive and should be granted unless necessary to ensure trial attendance. Factors like the nature of the offense, potential flight risk, and impact on justice are crucial in bail decisions.

7. Conclusion: The bail petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon fulfilling the specified conditions. The court clarified that the decision did not reflect on the case's merits and was limited to the bail application's disposal.