1994 (9) TMI 199 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. for possession of heroin powder
- Interpretation of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act in relation to bail provisions
- Delay in sending seized property to Court affecting bail eligibility

Analysis:

Issue 1: Bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. for possession of heroin powder
The petitioners sought bail under proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. due to the absence of a charge-sheet within 90 days of custody. The argument centered on the constitutional rights under Art. 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that the N.D.P.S. Act should not limit the powers of the High Court. The court referred to precedents like Berlin Joseph and Md. Abdul cases, highlighting that Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act should not override the bail provision in Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the conditions of Section 37 before granting bail post the 90-day period.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act in relation to bail provisions
The court analyzed the interplay between Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the bail provisions under Cr. P.C. It referenced decisions like Seemairaj and Sanjeevi cases, which differed in their interpretation regarding the applicability of the proviso to Section 167(2) in N.D.P.S. Act cases. The judgment aligned with the view that Section 37 imposes limitations on bail, emphasizing the special nature of the NDPS Act and the need to adhere to its provisions while granting bail.

Issue 3: Delay in sending seized property to Court affecting bail eligibility
The petitioners also argued for bail due to a delay in sending the seized property to court, citing a precedent where bail was granted based on delayed dispatch of evidence. However, the court noted that in the present case, there was no delay in sending the property to court, and the petitioners failed to provide sufficient grounds to prove their innocence or lack of likelihood to commit further offenses while on bail. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail applications based on non-compliance with the requirements of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to the procedural and substantive requirements of the N.D.P.S. Act while considering bail applications, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberties with the stringent provisions of the Act.