2018 (6) TMI 346 - HC - Indian Laws

Drugs Trafficking - possession of contraband - Bail Application - Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act and Sections 307, 34, 427 of IPC - whether the recovery of contraband effected from the petitioner amounts to commercial quantity or otherwise? - Held that - Drug peddlers for a small monetary consideration make the youth to use drugs for a small time excitement/kick. The drug peddlers have successfully destroyed the social fabric of our society and led youth to the wrongful path. Such type of persons need to be dealt with firmly and sternly and no sympathy can be shown to them lest that should prove to be counter productive and result in increase drug trafficking. In addition to indulging in drug peddling, the petitioner had tried to run over the police officials performing their duties, who could save their lives with great difficulty. It has to be noticed that as per the prosecution story not only the accused was found in possession of the contraband but girl sitting with him was also in possession of the contraband. There is reasonable apprehension of his absconding and trying to tamper with prosecution evidence, if granted bail. Bail not granted - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application filed under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act and Sections 307, 34, 427 of IPC.
2. Whether the recovery of contraband amounts to commercial quantity.
3. Seriousness of drug trafficking and attempting to run over police officials.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an accused in a case involving NDPS Act and IPC sections, filed a bail application after being denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with a girl, was intercepted by the police while driving a car and attempted to run over the officials. Various substances were recovered from the petitioner and the girl, leading to their arrest.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the recovery did not constitute a commercial quantity and denied the petitioner's involvement in attempting to harm the police officials. Reference was made to previous cases to support the argument. Conversely, the counsel representing U.T. Chandigarh contended that the recovery amounted to a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, barring the petitioner from being granted bail.

3. The judge emphasized the seriousness of drug trafficking, stating that even if the recovery did not meet the commercial quantity threshold, the petitioner's involvement in drug trafficking was a severe offense. The judge highlighted the detrimental impact of drug peddling on society, especially on the youth. Additionally, the petitioner's attempt to harm the police officials was condemned, emphasizing the need for strict action against such individuals to deter similar crimes and maintain law and order.

In conclusion, the judge dismissed the bail application, citing the gravity of the offenses, the potential risk of absconding, and tampering with evidence. The judgment underscored the importance of addressing drug trafficking firmly and not showing leniency towards individuals involved in such activities.