2024 (8) TMI 1045 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - involvement in business of prohibited drugs and for recovery of 3600 tablets of Lomotil and 298 tablets of Alprax 0.5 - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, but without commenting on merits thereon it is required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, it is opined that petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case at this stage. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner's request for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Details and implications of the status report and investigation.
3. Legal precedents and arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel.
4. Prosecution's arguments against granting bail.
5. Court's decision and conditions for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Request for Bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with FIR No. 314 of 2021, registered under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) at Police Station Una, District Una, H.P.

2. Details and Implications of the Status Report and Investigation:
The status report detailed the arrest of the petitioner, Satnam Singh, based on reliable information regarding his involvement in the prohibited drugs business. The report narrated the recovery of 3600 tablets of Lomotil and 298 tablets of Alprax from the petitioner. During the investigation, co-accused Parma Nand Pandey was found in charge of Deep Medicos in Delhi, from where additional prohibited drugs were recovered. The status report also highlighted the involvement of Virender Singh Tokas, the owner of Deep Medicos, and his inability to produce a valid drug license due to a fire incident that destroyed records. The investigation concluded that Parma Nand Pandey and his brother Dayanand Pandey were involved in the illegal business of supplying prohibited drugs.

3. Legal Precedents and Arguments Presented by the Petitioner's Counsel:
The petitioner's counsel argued that Alprax had been deleted from the list of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, and thus, the petitioner should only face trial for the recovery of Lomotil. The counsel emphasized the petitioner's prolonged detention of about 2 1/2 years and the slow pace of the trial, with only 27 out of 43 witnesses examined. The counsel cited several Supreme Court judgments where bail was granted in similar cases due to prolonged detention and the unlikelihood of early trial completion. These cases included Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Amit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas v. The State of West Bengal, Kulwant Singh v. The State of Punjab, Mahmod Kurdeya v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma v. Union of India, and several judgments from the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

4. Prosecution's Arguments Against Granting Bail:
The Additional Advocate General argued against granting bail, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime, which not only ruins individuals but also damages families, society, and the nation. The prosecution highlighted the petitioner's involvement in a serious offense under the NDPS Act.

5. Court's Decision and Conditions for Granting Bail:
The court, after considering the entire facts and circumstances and legal precedents, decided to grant bail to the petitioner. The court ordered the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of the same amount, one of which should be a relative. The court imposed several conditions to ensure the petitioner's presence during the trial, including:
- Making himself available to the police or court as required.
- Not making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts.
- Not obstructing the investigation or trial progress.
- Not committing a similar offense.
- Not misusing his liberty.
- Not jumping bail.
- Informing about any change in address or contact details.
- Not leaving India without court permission.

The court also allowed the prosecution to apply for additional conditions if necessary and directed the trial court to impose further conditions if deemed necessary. The court emphasized that any violation of these conditions would result in the cancellation of bail.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail under specified conditions, ensuring his availability for the trial and adherence to legal obligations. The decision took into account the prolonged detention, slow trial progress, and legal precedents favoring bail in similar circumstances.

← Previous Next →