2022 (6) TMI 372 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Smuggling - MDMA pills of Commercial Quantity - offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(a)(b)(c), 27, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - On perusal of the material on record, on receipt of credible information, the parcel was seized in the post office and the same contains the name and phone number of this petitioner. The same is not disputed by the petitioner before the Court. But, the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that, he was working as an employee with the accused No.1 and he was discharging his duties as an employee with accused No.1. The counsel also not disputes the fact that the said parcel contains 493.5 grams of MDMA and the report is also before the Court. While exercising the discretion, the Court has to keep in mind the very proviso of Section 37(1)(b)(II) of the NDPS Act and the same has to be satisfied by a person, who approaches the Court. In the case on hand, admittedly, the parcel was in the name of this petitioner and the phone number mentioned in the parcel also belongs to this petitioner and the quantum of MDMA which is a manufactured drug seized is 493.5 grams which is 10 times the commercial quantity. It has to be noted that, while exercising the discretion, the Court has to keep in mind the fact that, to combat the menace in the society, the special enactment of NDPS Act was brought into force, when the IPC and other penal provisions are inadequate to prevent the offences which are against the society at large. The petitioner has to make out a case to grant bail and the Court has to keep in mind the very proviso of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to grant bail in favour of the petitioner - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for accused in NCB Crime case under NDPS Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a petition seeking regular bail for the accused, arraigned as accused No.2, in a Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Crime case pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. The accused was implicated in the case related to the seizure of MDMA pills from a parcel at the Foreign Post Office in Bengaluru. The parcel contained MDMA pills weighing a total of 1.538 grams, with 493.5 grams confirmed as MDMA. The accused, an employee of accused No.1, claimed ignorance about the parcel's contents and argued that he was merely discharging his duties. The defense highlighted that the accused was made a scapegoat, as the parcel was addressed using his name and phone number, which were also used by accused No.1.

The prosecution, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, emphasized the gravity of the offense, stating that the seized MDMA quantity was almost ten times the commercial quantity. The prosecution contended that the accused was involved in drug trafficking based on voluntary statements and observations from the investigation. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the prosecution underscored the deleterious impact of drug trafficking on society and the serious nature of offenses under the NDPS Act, with minimum punishments of ten years.

The court considered the material on record, noting that the accused's name and phone number were associated with the seized parcel. However, the court observed that the mere presence of the accused's details on the parcel was not sufficient to establish guilt. The court also highlighted the discretion under Section 37(1)(b)(II) of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need to combat drug-related offenses effectively. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments that compared drug offenses to murder in terms of societal impact, stressing the need to prevent such crimes, particularly among vulnerable groups like adolescents.

Ultimately, the court denied the bail petition, citing the significant quantity of seized MDMA linked to the accused and the ongoing investigation status. The court emphasized that the bail granted to accused No.1 did not set a precedent for the present case. The court concluded that the accused failed to establish a case for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., but reserved the petitioner's liberty to reapply after the charge sheet filing.