9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 517 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Bail - Search of vehicle - conspiracy of financing illicit trafficking of contraband and harbouring offender, punishable in terms of Section 27A NDPS Act - seizure of contraband - applicability of restriction of Section 37 NDPS Act - HELD THAT - It appears questionable if the respondent was entitled to be granted bail in this matter, particularly having regard to the facts and circumstances that (a) the accusation is essentially of financing the trafficking of contraband and also of harbouring offenders, which relates to the offence under Section 27A NDPS Act and to which, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do apply; (b) the accusation is supported by prima facie evidence, including the statements of witnesses as also CCTV footage and call data records; (c) on 23.02.2021, even though the respondent attempted to question the notice summoning him to appear at 04 00 p.m. and the High Court dismissed his writ petition but, he did not appear and was apprehended later in the night at a distant place; (d) the prosecution has shown that the respondent was involved in as many as 53 criminal cases and he has been convicted in at least two of them; and (e) the prosecution has alleged that even in relation to this particular case, the respondent had been separately charge-sheeted for the offence pertaining to Section 353 IPC and he has attempted to threaten the law enforcing agencies and personnel. According to the prosecution, the FIR in question for offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 NDPS Act came to be registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 19.02.2021, as submitted to the Officer In-Charge of New Alipore Police Station, Kolkata by Somnath Sarkar, SI after the aforesaid proceedings of search of the said motorcar as also seizure of contraband from the motorcar. This complaint dated 19.02.2021 is an admitted document of the appellant and is rather the foundation of the entire matter - the motorcar in question was in motion and was moving from west to east direction, which was detained by police with the help of other raiding team members; and second, that during search, the occupants of motorcar pointed towards two specific places inside the vehicle where the contraband drug/cocaine was placed in a concealed manner i.e., rear zip cover of the left front seat and beneath the driver s seat. Both these assertions, when examined with reference to the alleged statements of the three motorcar-occupants, as placed before us with supplementary written submissions, their incompatibility and contradiction strikingly come to the fore. At the present stage and on prima facie consideration of the matter, the only logical approach could be to proceed on the basis of the version of the SI as given in the written complaint because, it is not the case of the appellant that the version in the written complaint is not correct. In this view of the matter, the very edifice of the prosecution case against the respondent crumbles down and falls flat. Putting it differently, the story of planting of contraband in the vehicle in question by some third person like Amrit Raj Singh could only be disbelieved, for being squarely contrary to the initial case of the prosecution, as stated in the written complaint - Once the veracity of prosecution case against the respondent is in serious doubt, further analysis on the other factors about financing the drug trafficking and harbouring of offender need not be undertaken because, when the story of planting of contraband is removed out of consideration, all other factors by which respondent is sought to be connected with such alleged planting could only be regarded as false and fanciful, at least at this stage. There are no reason to consider interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions - it is deemed appropriate to observe that none of the comments herein would be of any bearing on the final view to be taken by the Trial Court after the trial because, the observations herein are only of prima facie view and that too, so far relevant for the purpose of the question of grant of bail to the respondent. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the bail order granted to the respondent. 2. Applicability of Section 27A of the NDPS Act. 3. Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 4. Allegations of conspiracy and financing illicit trafficking. 5. Criminal antecedents of the respondent. 6. Conduct of the respondent during the investigation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Bail Order: The Supreme Court examined the validity of the bail order granted by the Calcutta High Court, which had released the respondent on bail with stringent conditions. The High Court had concluded that the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply in this case, given the intermediate quantity of contraband involved and the lack of prima facie evidence supporting the charge under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court endorsed this view, emphasizing that the High Court's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts and applicable law. 2. Applicability of Section 27A of the NDPS Act: The prosecution alleged that the respondent financed the activity of procuring cocaine worth Rs. 8.5 lakhs and harbored the offender, which would attract the provisions of Section 27A of the NDPS Act. However, the High Court found no material evidence to support the charge of financing illicit trafficking and harboring offenders. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the prosecution's story of the respondent planting contraband in the vehicle was highly questionable and contradicted the initial FIR. 3. Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act: The respondent argued that Section 42 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, which should be considered during the trial. The High Court did not delve deeply into this issue, given its focus on the bail application. The Supreme Court also refrained from making a definitive ruling on this matter, leaving it for the trial court to decide. 4. Allegations of Conspiracy and Financing Illicit Trafficking: The prosecution's case was based on the allegation that the respondent conspired to falsely implicate the occupants of the motorcar by planting cocaine in their vehicle. This accusation was supported by the statements of witnesses and other evidence. However, the High Court found significant contradictions in the prosecution's story, particularly regarding the initial FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet. The Supreme Court observed that these contradictions raised serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's case. 5. Criminal Antecedents of the Respondent: The respondent had a history of 53 criminal cases, including convictions for criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint of police personnel. The prosecution argued that this history indicated a tendency to threaten public servants and tamper with evidence. However, the High Court noted that none of these cases involved offenses under the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court acknowledged the respondent's criminal history but emphasized that the primary issue was the veracity of the current charges under the NDPS Act. 6. Conduct of the Respondent During the Investigation: The prosecution highlighted the respondent's conduct during the investigation, including his failure to appear before the Investigating Officer and his alleged attempts to abscond. The High Court considered these factors but ultimately concluded that the respondent's conduct did not justify denying bail, especially given the doubts about the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the stringent conditions imposed by the High Court were sufficient to address concerns about the respondent's conduct. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent. The Court emphasized that its observations were based on a prima facie view and would not affect the final outcome of the trial. The decision highlighted the importance of a thorough and reasonable assessment of the facts and applicable law in bail matters, particularly under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.
|
