2021 (8) TMI 313 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - Smuggling - Charas - contraband item - admissibility of statements - recovery of of commercial quantity - Section 37 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case, as per the Status Report, charges have already been framed on 25.03.2021 and the same has not been challenged till date by the petitioner. The testimonies of the public witnesses cannot be analyzed at this stage, as their veracity will only be tested during the course of the trial - In the present case, as per the NCB, the petitioner was found trafficking 2.7 Kgs. of Charas concealed in 3 Books and false cavity of base of Bag which were all found in the baggage and said trafficking of Charas from India to Bangkok was being done in conspiracy with his live-in partner co-passenger Ms. Nympha De Jesus (Philippines National) who was also arrested and charged with the said offences. As per the NCB (respondent) the documents pertaining to the present petitioner were also found from the registered baggage. Charges have already been framed and the same have not been challenged. Recovered quantity is a commercial quantity and rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act applies. It cannot be said that there is no other material with the NCB except the statement U/s 67 of NDPS Act. There are two panch witnesses, baggage of the petitioner has been recovered and some documents relating to the petitioner have also been found in the baggage, therefore, in these circumstances, no ground for bail is made out. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 138/2017 under NDPS Act.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The case involves the detention of an accused at the airport with charas/hashish concealed in books, implicating the petitioner in a drug trafficking conspiracy with his co-accused.

2. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, a British citizen, claimed false implication, citing lack of contraband recovery from him, absence of crucial evidence like CCTV footage, and alleged coercion in his statement to NCB officials.

3. Respondent's Arguments: The NCB contended that the recovery of 2.7 Kg of Charas from the co-accused, along with the admissions of complicity by both accused, justified denial of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

4. Court's Observations: The court noted that charges were framed, and witness testimonies were yet to be tested during trial, emphasizing the seriousness of the recovered commercial quantity of Charas and the involvement of both accused in the trafficking operation.

5. NCB's Position: The NCB highlighted the recovery of documents related to the petitioner from the baggage, the presence of panch witnesses, and the commercial quantity of Charas as grounds to oppose bail, asserting the sufficiency of evidence beyond the statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

6. Judgment: Dismissing the bail application, the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, citing the substantial evidence, including recovered items and witness statements, supporting the charges against the petitioner and his co-accused in the drug trafficking conspiracy.