2020 (11) TMI 838 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - Drug Trafficking - petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated - It is submitted that presumption of innocence lies in favour of the petitioner till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt - HELD THAT - The petitioner Nagary Ally Kombo had directed Chinedu to handover the bag containing contraband to co-accused Kelvin. During investigation of the case, Mobile phones of the petitioner as well as other accused persons were examined and it was revealed that they were in touch and which prima facie shows that they are member of a drug syndicate and involved in the drug trafficking. The accusation in the present case is with regard to commercial quantity. As per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, if a person is accused of enumerated offences under the said provision and in case, the Court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any other enactment. Firstly the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence. Secondly that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The facts appearing on record prima facie reveal that petitioner is involved in drug trafficking and this Court is of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of offence charged. Huge quantity of Pseudoephedrine weighing 24.5 kg, has been recovered. Moreover, since the charge-sheet prima facie reveals that petitioner is member of a drug syndicate, it cannot be said that he will not commit any offence if released on bail. Thus, appearing on record and nature of offence, no grounds for grant of bail to the petitioner are made out - bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a case under NDPS Act involving serious allegations and gravity of the offense.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, claiming innocence and false implication. The petitioner's counsel argued that the presumption of innocence favors the petitioner until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It was highlighted that the petitioner's passport was seized during the investigation, indicating no risk of fleeing from justice. The defense emphasized that various factors, including the nature of allegations, seriousness of the offense, evidence, and chances of tampering or fleeing, should be considered for bail jurisdiction. Additionally, the petitioner, being the sole breadwinner of a dependent family, was suffering due to incarceration. The defense contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated based on a co-accused's disclosure statement. Despite previous dismissal of a bail application, it was urged that the petitioner should be released in the interest of justice due to innocence and lack of investigative necessity.

The National Control Bureau (NCB) opposed the bail application, citing the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner. The court considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed several legal precedents cited by the petitioner's counsel. However, the court noted that each case must be evaluated based on its unique facts and circumstances. It emphasized that judicial precedent should be applied with reference to the specific case involved, as differences in facts can affect the precedential value of a decision. The court stressed that decisions are authoritative only for what they decide and must be understood in the context of the case's factual background.

In the context of bail considerations, the court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling that there is no fixed formula for granting bail, as it depends on the individual case's facts and circumstances. The court highlighted the balance between preventing crime and upholding personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity offenses. These conditions require reasonable grounds to believe in the accused's innocence and assurance that the accused will not commit further offenses while on bail.

After reviewing the prosecution's case, which included the recovery of a significant quantity of contraband and evidence suggesting the petitioner's involvement in a drug syndicate, the court found no reasonable grounds to believe in the petitioner's innocence. Considering the gravity of the offense and the likelihood of the petitioner committing further offenses if released on bail, the court dismissed the bail application. It was clarified that the dismissal did not signify a judgment on the case's merits, and the order was to be promptly uploaded on the court's website.