2021 (1) TMI 706 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - recovery of contraband from a vehicle in transit - tablets of Clovidol-100-SR (Tramadol) - tablets of Clovidol-100-SR (Tramadol) - Wincerex - HELD THAT - It is a case where pursuant to receipt of secret information, the police intercepted a car in which the petitioner and one Sanju Singh were found travelling and search of which led to recovery of 23,500 tablets of Clovidol-100-SR (Tramadol) and another 17,000 tablets of Clovidol-100-SR (Tramadol) apart from 200 vials 100 ml each of Wincerex. Section 42 of the Act pertaining to power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. The material question would be as to whether it is the procedure mandated under Section 42 of the Act which would be applicable or as to whether Section 43 of the Act alone will apply in such cases of recovery from a vehicle in public place. Even if it is taken that provisions of Section were to apply, still it is a case where secret information had been duly conveyed to the superior officer i.e. the SHO, by the person receiving secret information namely ASI Walaiti Ram by way of sending a ruqa stating factum of receipt of secret information, before the vehicle in question was intercepted and before recovery was effected, which would be sufficient compliance of section 42 of the Act - it is a case covered under Section 43 of the Act, the contention raised by learned counsel regarding non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act cannot be accepted. Additionally, the recovered quantity of contraband which falls in the category of commercial quantity would attract fetters imposed by Section 37 of the Act in the matter of grant of bail - there is nothing on record at this stage from which it could be inferred that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence in question. Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
Grant of regular bail in a case under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 based on recovery of contraband tablets and vials from a vehicle. Interpretation of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act regarding the procedure for search, seizure, and arrest without warrant or authorization. Compliance with Section 42 in terms of conveying secret information to the superior officer before interception of the vehicle. Application of Section 43 for recovery of contraband from a vehicle in transit. Impact of recovery of a "commercial quantity" of contraband on the grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Regular Bail:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, following the recovery of a significant quantity of contraband tablets and vials from a vehicle. The prosecution's case was based on the interception of the vehicle carrying the petitioner and another individual, leading to the recovery of the illegal substances.

2. Interpretation of Sections 42 and 43:
The crux of the argument revolved around the interpretation of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act concerning the procedure for entry, search, seizure, and arrest without warrant or authorization. Section 42 mandates the recording of reasons for belief and information received in writing before conducting search and seizure, while Section 43 allows for seizure in public places or in transit without such requirements.

3. Compliance with Section 42:
The petitioner contended that non-compliance with Section 42 due to the failure to convey secret information to the superior officer before the interception of the vehicle rendered the recovery of contraband invalid. The State argued that sending intimation by way of a 'ruqa' to the SHO before interception satisfied the requirements of Section 42.

4. Application of Section 43:
Given that the recovery was made from a vehicle in transit, the Court emphasized that Section 43, which deals with seizure and arrest in public places, would be applicable in this scenario. Previous judgments highlighted the distinction between Sections 42 and 43 in cases of recovery from vehicles in transit.

5. Impact of "Commercial Quantity" Recovery on Bail:
The recovered quantity of contraband falling under the category of 'commercial quantity' invoked the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the Act regarding the grant of bail. Citing precedent, the Court underscored that a liberal approach to bail in NDPS Act offenses is unwarranted, especially when dealing with substantial quantities of illegal substances.

6. Final Decision:
After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Court dismissed the petition for bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's involvement in the offense was evident from the recovery of the contraband. The judgment underscored the stringent approach mandated by the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving significant quantities of illegal substances.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's reasoning leading to the final decision to dismiss the bail petition.

← Previous Next →