9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 329 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of regular bail - Methamphetamine - petitioner is part of network who is engaged in supply/sale of Narcotics - Baggage Rules - Section 37 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - Petitioner on 22.02.2018 was found in the possession of Methamphetamine and the same has been verified by conducting a chemical test of the sample of the seized material. The disclosure statement has lead to the arrest of two Nigerian accused in whose possession narcotics was found. It has also been discovered by the NCB that these two accused were living illegally in India on fake passports. Material on record discloses that the petitioner is a part of a network which deals in supply/sale of Narcotics. This is evident from the subsequent recoveries of Narcotics from foreign nationals. The clean tidy track record of the Petitioner does not absolve her from being in possession of 600 Gms of Methamphetamine. An uneducated person may claim no knowledge of the substance found in his/her possession and may raise a defense of the substance being planted on them but being a highly educated person, there is greater presumption that carrying large quantities of narcotics is a crime and that it would entail consequences in law which could be harsh and irrevocable. The quantity recovered from the Petitioner is commercial quantity. For the said reasons, the Petitioners case doesn t fall within the twin parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest and search procedure under NDPS Act. 2. Delay in recording statements of prosecution witnesses. 3. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 4. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail. 5. Petitioner's conduct and previous bail conditions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the arrest and search procedure under NDPS Act: The petitioner was intercepted based on a secret tip-off while traveling from Delhi to Mumbai. The NCB officials, after identifying the petitioner, served a Section 50 notice informing her of her rights to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The petitioner waived this right and agreed to be searched by NCB lady officers. Subsequently, 600 grams of Methamphetamine was found in her possession. The search and seizure were conducted in accordance with the NDPS Rules, and the petitioner’s disclosure led to the arrest of two other individuals and the recovery of additional narcotics. 2. Delay in recording statements of prosecution witnesses: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses violated Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution, however, contended that the witnesses were given notice on the same day of the seizure and were examined subsequently. The court opined that the delay in recording statements is a matter for trial and does not impact the current bail consideration. 3. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act: The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the search was conducted in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. However, the court observed that the petitioner was duly informed of her rights under Section 50 and had waived those rights in writing. The court referred to a Division Bench’s interpretation that strict compliance with Section 50 is mandatory, but the waiver by the suspect is valid. 4. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail: Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the strict application of these conditions. The court found that the petitioner’s possession of a commercial quantity of Methamphetamine and the subsequent arrests and recoveries indicated a prima facie case against her, thereby not satisfying the conditions for bail under Section 37. 5. Petitioner's conduct and previous bail conditions: The petitioner’s counsel highlighted her satisfactory conduct during previous bail periods and her compliance with bail conditions. The court acknowledged her good conduct but emphasized that the severity of the offense and the evidence of her involvement in a narcotic network outweighed these considerations. The court concluded that the petitioner’s clean record does not absolve her from the serious charges under the NDPS Act. Conclusion: The court dismissed the bail petition, finding that the petitioner’s case did not meet the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court clarified that its observations should not influence the trial court’s consideration of the case on its merits.
|
