2017 (1) TMI 863 - HC - Indian Laws

Regular bail in FIR registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Held that - This Court is not at this stage inclined to record a finding with regard to the competency of the officer who carried out the search upon the petitioner. However, considering the period of incarceration and the fact that the petitioner was allowed statutory bail in the instant FIR, without adverting to the merits of the instant case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Summary

Issues: Regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act; Competency of the officer conducting the search; Multiple FIRs involving the petitioner.

Regular Bail Issue Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner had been previously admitted to statutory bail but was allegedly falsely implicated in another FIR. The petitioner's counsel argued that the search conducted by the ad hoc ASI was invalid as the officer was not qualified to perform the search. The State counsel, however, contended that the ASI was competent based on a notification empowering officers of and above the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to exercise powers under the NDPS Act. Despite the competency issue, the Court granted bail to the petitioner during the trial, considering the period of incarceration and the previous statutory bail granted in the same case.

Competency of the Officer Issue Analysis:
The competency of the officer conducting the search was a crucial point of contention in the case. The petitioner's counsel cited previous judgments highlighting the necessity for officers to have the required qualifications for conducting searches under the NDPS Act. On the other hand, the State counsel relied on a notification empowering ASIs and above to perform such duties. The Court refrained from making a definitive ruling on the officer's competency but granted bail to the petitioner based on other considerations.

Multiple FIRs Issue Analysis:
The State counsel mentioned that the petitioner was involved in 08 other FIRs, indicating a pattern of alleged criminal activity. However, this information did not directly impact the decision on the regular bail application. The Court focused on the specific case at hand and the petitioner's entitlement to bail during the trial, independent of the other FIRs. The judgment clarified that the decision to grant bail should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, maintaining neutrality on the overall legal proceedings.