9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 813 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Regular Bail - Smuggling - Charas - contraband item - offences under section 20/25 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case, GD entry No. 0011A was recorded on the basis of the secret information received. So, at the stage of bail factual matrix of the case cannot be looked into and the same would be seen during the course of trial. The petitioner was arrested alongwith his co-accused, who is involved in two other cases of NDPS Act and no doubt he was carrying only 555 Gms. of Charas, which according to the counsel for the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity but his co-accused was carrying 955 grams of conrtraband, so at this stage, it would not be proper to consider the alleged recovery to be an individual recovery as both of them were travelling in the same vehicle. Co-accused is a habitual offender and he knows the trick of the trade and the factum of conspiracy can only be looked into at the time when the evidence is led. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the alleged recovered quantity from both the accused being more than 1 Kg., rigors of Section 37 applies. Bail application dismissed.
Issues:
Grant of regular bail in a case under Section 20/25 of the NDPS Act - Application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Alleged recovery of contraband - Violations of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act - Conspiracy to bring contraband to Delhi - Individual recovery vs. collective recovery - Habitual offender involved - Interpretation of Sections 29 and 37 of the NDPS Act. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in a case registered under Section 20/25 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was apprehended along with a co-accused based on secret information, and contraband was recovered from both individuals during a raid. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to bring contraband into Delhi NCR for sale, leading to the addition of Section 29 NDPS Act during the investigation. The petitioner argued that the recovered quantity of contraband was less than the commercial quantity, challenging the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He also raised concerns regarding the clubbing of recoveries from him and his co-accused, citing violations of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed the bail application, highlighting the alleged conspiracy and the criminal antecedents of the co-accused, who was a habitual offender. The State contended that the recovery from each accused should not be treated as independent, relying on various legal precedents. The State emphasized the application of Sections 29 and 37 of the NDPS Act, arguing against the grant of bail during trial unless specific conditions under Section 37 are met, as observed in the judgment of Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Anr. 1999 (4) SCC 134 (SC). The Court dismissed the bail application, considering the alleged recovered quantity from both accused collectively exceeding 1 Kg. It noted the involvement of a habitual offender, the potential conspiracy, and the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The judgment emphasized that the factual matrix of the case would be examined during the trial, and at the bail stage, the application did not establish grounds for bail based on the circumstances and the application of Section 37. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the complexities of NDPS Act provisions, the significance of recoveries, the concept of conspiracy, and the stringent criteria for bail under Section 37. It highlights the importance of evidence, legal precedents, and the specific conditions that must be satisfied for bail in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
|
