2023 (6) TMI 1440 - HC - Customs

Grant of bail - conscious possession of the 3000 grams of hashish which is of commercial quantity - concealment of contraband - offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 21 (c) 23 (C) 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 135A of Customs Act - quantitative analysis of the contraband was not carried out - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - On merits the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already considered the petition filed by the petitioner and it has formed an opinion that the petitioner is not entitle for grant of bail. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not seeking bail on merits of the case but only on the ground of delay in trial. Petitioner was apprehended on 15.09.2019 the charge sheet came to be filed immediately during 2019. The prosecution has cited as many as 24 witnesses. A special Court is constituted to try the offences under NDPS Act. The pendency before the Court is about 1300. Invariably in many of these cases the accused are in judicial custody. Under such circumstances it is humanly impossible to dispose of all these matters in a time bound manner. Even though a person is entitled for protection of life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India the same is not an absolute right. Such right of protection of life and personal liberty could be taken away in accordance with the procedure established by law. The discussions made on the merits of the case where prima facie materials are placed to show the involvement of the accused it is felt that the accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Under such circumstances applying Article 21 of the Constitution of India the accused cannot be enlarged on bail ignoring the societal interest which is the paramount for any civilized society. The clinching materials placed before the Court prima facie connects the petitioner to the commercial quantity of the contraband that was being smuggled. After investigation a detailed charge sheet is also filed. Examination of the witnesses and disposing of the cases within few months or at-least within a year or two is an ideal situation but with the infrastructure provided when compared to the pendency of the case such early disposal of cases is not a reality. In such an event if the accused is enlarged on bail only on the ground that the trial in the matter has not been completed the same will have an adverse impact on the society as a whole and it will be like setting a bad precedent to be applied in all other heinous cases to get the accused released on bail. Therefore looking at the seriousness of the offences and the materials that are placed before the Court the accused is not entitled for grant of bail during trial - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(C), 28, and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 135A of Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Contentions:
- The petitioner, accused No. 1, seeks bail, claiming innocence and false implication.
- Previous petition dismissed; now seeks bail due to delay in trial.
- Cites Supreme Court cases to support bail plea based on lack of quantitative analysis and delay in trial.

2. Respondent's Arguments:
- Serious allegations against petitioner for possession of commercial quantity of hashish.
- Contraband found in petitioner's luggage; accused No. 2 not in possession.
- Emphasizes nature and seriousness of offences, bar under NDPS Act for bail.
- Opposes bail based on delay, citing priority in trial proceedings.

3. Court's Consideration:
- Primary issue: Whether petitioner entitled to bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
- Respondent's contention of conscious possession of hashish by petitioner.
- Previous dismissal of bail plea by Co-ordinate Bench considered.
- Discussion on delay in trial, societal interest, and constitutional rights.

4. Court's Decision:
- Court denies bail based on petitioner's possession of contraband and seriousness of offences.
- Emphasizes societal interest and impact of setting precedent for releasing accused in heinous cases.
- Infrastructure constraints leading to trial delays not sufficient grounds for bail.
- Balancing accused's rights with societal interests, court dismisses the petition for bail.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka, through a detailed analysis of the petitioner's contentions, respondent's arguments, and legal precedents, denied the grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving serious drug-related offences. The judgment highlighted the importance of societal interests, constitutional rights, and the impact of setting precedents in heinous cases, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the bail petition.