2024 (4) TMI 1191 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - recovery of 143 kgs of Ganja from the applicant's car - no apprehension of the applicant evading trial or tampering with evidence/influencing witnesses - bail application is resisted on the ground that the said amount recovered from the car of the applicant, qualifies as commercial quantity and thus the rigorous of the Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable in the present case - HELD THAT - It is clear that even in situations wherein commercial quantity has been recovered from the accused, the said individual has been granted the benefit of bail, while considering of the period of incarceration as well as the fact that the trial is likely to take some time in a case. Considering the aforesaid factual and legal position especially the fact that the applicant has been in custody for about 3 and a half years as also the fact that only 2 witnesses have been examined so far, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty M.M. and subject to fulfilment of further conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Regular bail application under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 20 of NDPS Act, 1985 involving the recovery of 143 kgs of Ganja from the applicant's car. The applicant has been in custody for about 3 and a half years, and only 2 out of 37 witnesses have been examined so far.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving the recovery of a commercial quantity of Ganja from his car. The defense argued that the applicant had been in custody since September 2020, and co-accused persons had already been released on bail. The defense highlighted that necessary recoveries had been made, and there was no risk of the applicant evading trial or tampering with evidence. Additionally, it was emphasized that the trial was likely to be prolonged, citing Supreme Court decisions supporting bail in similar circumstances.

The prosecution opposed the bail application, stating that a significant amount of illegal Ganja was seized from the applicant's car. The prosecution detailed the circumstances of the arrest, where the applicant was found driving the car with the Ganja, and highlighted connections with other co-accused individuals. The prosecution also mentioned the charge sheet had been filed and referred to call detail records collected during the investigation.

The court considered the arguments from both sides and noted the recovery of 143 kgs of Ganja from the applicant's car, qualifying as a commercial quantity. The defense emphasized the delay in the trial process and the applicant's clean record in other cases. The court referred to various Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, emphasizing the importance of timely trials and the protection of fundamental rights.

Citing legal precedents, the court acknowledged that prolonged incarceration could violate fundamental rights and impact the right to a speedy trial. The court referenced cases where bail was granted due to extended custody periods despite the severity of the charges. Considering the applicant's lengthy custody and the slow trial progress, the court granted regular bail with specific conditions, including a personal bond and restrictions on the applicant's movements and interactions related to the case.

The court concluded by directing the communication of the order to the concerned authorities, uploading it on the website, and clarifying that the decision on bail did not reflect on the case's merits or impact the trial proceedings.