2019 (11) TMI 607 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - Contraband item - Pseudoephedrine - Heroin - scope of commercial quantity - Section 37 of the NDPS Act - cognizable and non-bailable offences - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that in this matter, the quantity involved is a commercial one and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable. Generally, the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The acts of various parties to the conspiracy will infer that they were done with reference to common intention, hence, it is held, time and again, that the conspiracy can be proved by indirect circumstantial evidence, which is of an impeccable nature. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators should know each other and also every detail of the plot, so long as they are co-participators in the main object thereof and it is also not necessary that all of them should participate from the inception of the stratagem till the end, the determinative factor, being unity of object or purpose and their participation at different stages. 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. There is nothing on record 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, hence, this Court does not find any merit in the bail application of the petitioner and the same is, accordingly, dismissed - petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
2. Allegations and evidence against the petitioner.
3. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
4. Previous judicial decisions and their relevance.
5. Legal principles regarding conspiracy and bail under the NDPS Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Regular Bail:
The petitioner filed an application for regular bail under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been in custody since 17-2-2016 and claims to have been falsely implicated.

2. Allegations and Evidence Against the Petitioner:
On 2-12-2015, two parcels containing 390 gms of Pseudoephedrine and 325 gms of Heroin were intercepted and found to be booked by the petitioner. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner booked these parcels on the instructions of the co-accused, Lokesh Chadha. The petitioner’s voluntary statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act revealed that he knowingly booked these parcels, indicating his involvement in the conspiracy.

3. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act:
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for granting bail, particularly for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court noted that the quantity involved is commercial, and the rigours of Section 37 are applicable.

4. Previous Judicial Decisions and Their Relevance:
The petitioner relied on the case of Surbir Singh v. Customs (Preventive), 2018 VIII AD (Delhi) 670, arguing that the facts were identical. However, the court found this judgment inapplicable to the present case. The court also referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Saju v. State of Kerala, Mir Nagvi Askari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Mohd. Amin v. CBI, which discuss the principles of conspiracy and the stringent conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act.

5. Legal Principles Regarding Conspiracy and Bail:
The court emphasized that conspiracy is often hatched in secrecy, and direct evidence may be difficult to obtain. Circumstantial evidence of an impeccable nature can be used to prove conspiracy. The court reiterated that before granting bail under the NDPS Act, it must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner had knowingly and intentionally booked the parcels containing drugs, indicating his involvement in the conspiracy. The payment of an exorbitant sum for booking the parcels further demonstrated his knowledge of the contents. Given the material on record and the petitioner’s previous conduct, the court found no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty or that he would not commit the offence again if released on bail. Therefore, the bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings. The observations made were prima facie and not an expression on the merits of the case.

← Previous Next →