2021 (3) TMI 739 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular bail - Smuggling - Pseudoephedrine - restricted item or not - petitioner contends that Pseudoephedrine is only a controlled commodity and therefore the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply to the facts of this case - HELD THAT - Pseudoephedrine is a controlled commodity and therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in stating that the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act is not applicable to the present case. The petitioner is in custody for about 4 months now. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. At this stage this Court is not inclined to go on the merits of the case as it will cause prejudice to the parties. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety of the like amount by a relative of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in a case involving offences under Sections 9A, 25A, 22, 23, and 29 of NDPS Act based on the seizure of Pseudoephedrine.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C in a matter related to offences under Sections 9A, 25A, 22, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act, concerning the seizure of Pseudoephedrine. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a parcel containing Pseudoephedrine, which was booked by one individual but sent using another person's ID documents. The prosecution's case highlighted the details of the investigation, including statements from involved parties and the seizure of a significant quantity of Pseudoephedrine. The petitioner's counsel argued that Pseudoephedrine is a controlled commodity, questioning the admissibility of certain statements as evidence. The prosecution contended that the petitioner had sent parcels on previous occasions and raised concerns about the possibility of the petitioner continuing such activities if granted bail.

The Hon'ble Court, after hearing both sides, acknowledged that Pseudoephedrine is a controlled commodity, thus the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act might not directly apply. The Court noted the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents and the time spent in custody. While refraining from delving into the case's merits to avoid prejudice, the Court decided to grant bail to the petitioner under specific conditions. The conditions included furnishing a personal bond, surrendering the passport, providing a functional mobile number to the Investigating Officer (IO), and reporting to the IO weekly. The Court allowed the petition in the mentioned terms and directed the transmission of the order to the concerned authorities for compliance.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with the complexities surrounding the bail application in a case involving the seizure of a controlled substance, emphasizing the need to balance legal provisions with individual circumstances while ensuring compliance with set conditions for bail.