2021 (9) TMI 1045 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of Bail - Smuggling - Alprazolam - it is claimed that petitioner seeks parity with the co-accused, as co-accused Rohit Kumar has already been granted bail - section 22(C), 23(C) and 28 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act 1985 - HELD THAT - In the present case, 21 corrugated boxes, 1810 strips comprising of 70 tablets of each i.e. 1,26,700 tablets of psychotropic substances Alprazolam was found concealed in box No. 11 in commercial quantity which is listed at S.No. 178 in the schedule of NDPS Act. 1985. It is also pertinent to note that the recovered substance falls under the commercial quantity and embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable - The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The expression reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantially probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Steps has been taken by the Customs (respondent) to challenge the grant of bail to the co-accused or not - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh 2020 (1) TMI 1002 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the consideration prevailed upon the Court to grant bail to the other accused persons will not absolve the act of the accused respondent from the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - the contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that no steps has been taken by the Customs (respondent) to challenge the grant of bail to the co-accused is of no consequence. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for NDPS Act violation involving commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. Allegation of false implication, parity with co-accused, disability of petitioner's wife, and challenge to charge framing. Interpretation of Section 37 of NDPS Act for bail eligibility based on reasonable grounds and twin conditions satisfaction.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving violations of the NDPS Act with commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. The Customs alleged that the petitioner handed over a consignment containing concealed Alprazolam tablets to a co-accused for export. The charge framed against the petitioner included serious sections of the NDPS Act, leading to the application of Section 37 of the Act.

The petitioner argued false implication, citing the co-accused's bail and seeking parity. Additionally, the petitioner's wife's disability and the expected lengthy trial duration were presented. The Customs opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of charges and reliance on a Supreme Court judgment regarding bail denial under similar circumstances.

The Court analyzed Section 37 of the NDPS Act, highlighting the twin conditions necessary for bail eligibility. The provision mandates that bail can only be granted if the prosecution is given a chance to oppose and the Court is convinced of the accused's probable innocence. The Court clarified that "reasonable grounds" for bail mean more than prima facie evidence, requiring substantial justification for believing in the accused's innocence.

The Court dismissed the bail application, considering the petitioner's involvement in another similar case and the serious nature of the charges. The Court rejected the argument of lack of challenge to co-accused's bail based on a Supreme Court precedent emphasizing the stringent application of Section 37. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner did not meet the conditions for bail under the NDPS Act, leading to the application's dismissal without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.