9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1075 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of Bail - Smuggling - contraband item - admissibility of evidences - allegation against the appellant is that he was part of the conspiracy to smuggle the huge quantity of contraband into India and therefore he should not be granted bail - HELD THAT - The case of the appellant herein is totally different from the other accused. Reasonable possibility is there that he may be acquitted. He has been behind bars since his arrest on 04.08.2017 i.e. for more than 2 years and he is a young man aged about 25 years. He is a B.Tech Graduate. Therefore, under facts and circumstances of this case we feel that this is a fit case where the appellant is entitled to bail because there is a possibility that he was unaware of the illegal activities of his brother and the other crew members. The case of the appellant is different from that of all the other accused, whether it be the Master of the ship, the crew members or the persons who introduced the Master to the prospective buyers and the prospective buyers. Some stringent conditions will have to be imposed upon the appellant - the appellant Sujit Tiwari are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 10,00,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount to the 8 satisfaction of the Special Judge, NDPS Court at Porbandar on the conditions imposed - appeal disposed off.
Issues: Bail application in a drug smuggling case involving a ship intercepted by the Indian Coast Guard.
Analysis: 1. Interception and Seizure of Ship: The Indian Coast Guard intercepted the vessel MV Hennry based on intelligence inputs, leading to the discovery of approximately 1445 kg of narcotics hidden in various compartments of the ship. The Master of the ship and 7 crew members, all Indian nationals, were found without proper documentation. 2. Investigation and Charges: The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) conducted an investigation and filed a complaint against the Master, crew members, and others, including the appellant, for their involvement in the drug smuggling operation. The complaint detailed the sequence of events from interception to offloading and testing of the contraband substance. 3. Allegations and Conspiracy: The Master of the ship admitted to being part of a conspiracy involving an Iranian national who purchased the heroin and arranged for its concealment on the ship. The crew members, including foreign nationals, were alleged to have been part of the smuggling operation. 4. Bail Application and Legal Arguments: The appellant filed a bail application, contending that there was insufficient evidence to connect him to the crime. The defense argued for default bail under the CrPC and NDPS Act provisions, while the prosecution cited Section 37 of the NDPS Act as a bar to granting bail. 5. Court's Consideration: The Court considered the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy, his awareness of the illegal activities, and the evidence presented, including WhatsApp messages and the appellant's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Court noted the possibility that the appellant may not have been fully aware of the entire conspiracy. 6. Grant of Bail: Despite acknowledging the seriousness of the offense, the Court found that the appellant's case was distinct from the other accused individuals. Considering the appellant's young age, educational background, and the possibility of his acquittal, the Court granted him bail with stringent conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation and trial proceedings. 7. Bail Conditions: The Court imposed strict conditions on the appellant, including surrendering his passport, restricting his movements to specific locations, reporting to authorities, joining investigations, and refraining from interfering with the legal process. Non-compliance with these conditions could lead to bail cancellation upon NCB's application to the Special Judge. 8. Conclusion: The Court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing the unique circumstances of his case and the need for stringent conditions to safeguard the legal process. The judgment highlighted the importance of individual considerations in bail decisions, balancing the interests of justice with the rights of the accused.
|
