9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 307 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of Bail - Smuggling - Ketamine Hydrochloride - Drug or not - section 50 of NDPS Act - petitioner is alleged of offences punishable under Sections 8, 22, 23, 27A, 28, 29 and32B(a) of the Act. HELD THAT - In order to grant bail, Court must record satisfaction on two aspects. Firstly that there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of alleged offence and secondly that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Admittedly, Ketamine finds its place at Sl. No.110A of the Schedule. Salts and preparations find place at Sl. No.111. Hence, Ketamine Hydrochloride will have to be treated as a preparation of Ketamine. - the contention urged by Shri. Hasmath Pasha that petitioner is required to be tried only for violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is also untenable. A careful analysis of dates and events discernable from petitioner s statement, seized documents and contraband do not instil confidence to record satisfaction that there exist grounds to believe that petitioner is not prima facie guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence, if released on bail. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Illegal detention of the petitioner. 2. Possession of the garage premises from where contraband was recovered. 3. Non-registration of FIR and maintenance of case diary by NCB. 4. Legality of Panchanama conducted on 1st May 2019. 5. Classification of Ketamine Hydrochloride under the NDPS Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Illegal Detention of the Petitioner: The petitioner claimed he was kept in illegal detention from 1st May 2019 until he was produced before the Special Judge. The prosecution asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 3rd May 2019 and produced before the court on 4th May 2019. The court noted that the petitioner did not complain about any ill-treatment when produced on 4th May 2019 and that the bail application was moved on 7th June 2019, making this ground untenable. 2. Possession of the Garage Premises: The petitioner argued that the garage from where the contraband was recovered was not in his possession. The prosecution countered that the garage was part of the building occupied by the petitioner. The lease agreement indicated that the petitioner was in occupation of the entire building, rendering this ground untenable. 3. Non-registration of FIR and Maintenance of Case Diary by NCB: The petitioner contended that no FIR had been registered and no case diary was maintained by the NCB. The prosecution, referencing the case of Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan, argued that the production of the arrestee before a competent Magistrate by an authorized officer was sufficient. The court found that the arrest memo had been served and the petitioner was produced before the Trial Judge, making this ground untenable. 4. Legality of Panchanama Conducted on 1st May 2019: The petitioner challenged the Panchanama dated 1st May 2019, conducted at 22.00 hours, as contrary to law. The prosecution provided the authorization under Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, issued by the Superintendent of NCB to search the petitioner’s building. The court found this ground untenable. 5. Classification of Ketamine Hydrochloride under the NDPS Act: The petitioner argued that Ketamine Hydrochloride is not a psychotropic drug under the NDPS Act but is covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in Vishal Puri vs. Union of India, which upheld the inclusion of Ketamine in the NDPS Act. The court concluded that Ketamine Hydrochloride should be treated as a preparation of Ketamine, making this ground untenable. Conclusion: The court, after considering all grounds and evidence, concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged offence or that he would not commit any offence if released on bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
|
