9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 582 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Regular bail - Smuggling - contraband item - 4200 Tablets of Zolpidam (1.050 Kg) - 6000 Tablets of Alprazolam (1.200Kg) - offence under section 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, and punishable under section 22, 25 29 of NDPS Act - HELD THAT - In the present case, there is a recovery of commercial quantity of medicines from co-accused Dipu Singh who is also found to be delivering the medicines illegally over the orders placed through the present petitioner/accused and both accused are found to be connected through WhatsApp chat messages as well as through mobile phones. The chat conversation between the petitioner/accused and Dipu Singh reveals that they were indulging in supply of the narcotic drugs. The conduct of petitioner/accused in destroying the SIM before being interrogated by the NCB officials points towards the guilty mind. The present case is a case of commercial quantity and the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable - The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is reasonable ground to believe that the person is not guilty of the offence. The test which is required to be applied while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit an offence while on bail. Given the seriousness of the offence punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed. The application lacks merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's bail application under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 2. Admissibility of the petitioner's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 3. Involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy and illicit drug trafficking. 4. Application of Section 37 NDPS Act in the context of commercial quantity recovery. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the petitioner's bail application under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), read with Sections 439 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. The court noted that the petitioner was in constant touch with co-accused Dipu Singh, which was evident from call records and WhatsApp messages. 2. Admissibility of the petitioner's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act: The petitioner argued that his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that confessional statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible in evidence. Despite this, the court noted the significant recovery of commercial quantities of drugs and the petitioner's involvement, as indicated by other evidence. 3. Involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy and illicit drug trafficking: The court examined the prosecution's evidence, which included the recovery of large quantities of narcotic drugs from co-accused Dipu Singh and the petitioner's admitted involvement in providing orders for these drugs. The petitioner was found to be in regular contact with Dipu Singh through phone calls and WhatsApp messages. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was using a mobile number registered under another person's name, which was frequently in contact with Dipu Singh. 4. Application of Section 37 NDPS Act in the context of commercial quantity recovery: The court reiterated the stringent conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, which require the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail application and the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation in Union of India Vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, emphasizing that "reasonable grounds" means substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty. The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the drug trafficking conspiracy and the destruction of evidence (SIM card) indicated a guilty mind. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner's bail application lacked merit due to the substantial evidence of his involvement in the drug trafficking conspiracy and the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The application was dismissed, and it was noted that nothing stated in the judgment should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
|
