2021 (11) TMI 890 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - recovery of Pseudoephedrine during search - mandatory provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have been followed or not - section 67 NDPS Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case, on 10.01.2019 a secret information was received and petitioner was intercepted at IGI airport while he was travelling to Dar-Es-Sallam via Doha and during search 24.5 Kg. of Pseudoephedrine was recovered from his bag. The petitioner during investigation tendered his voluntary statement U/s 67 NDPS Act and admitted the recovery. The petitioner was supposed to hand over the suit case containing Pseudoephedrine to his co-accused at Tanzania which was seized from his possession. During investigation, mobile phone of the petitioner and other co-accused persons were examined and it was found that they were in constant touch with each other. Manner in which the samples were drawn was as per law or not - it is contended that the sample were not taken from each packet and this is totally a violation of law in drawing the sample of drugs - while issuing notice U/s 50 of the NDPS Act the mandatory provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have been followed or not - HELD THAT - Both the contentions are liable to be rejected as they relate to violation of the procedural aspects which can only be looked into during the course of trial and cannot be deeply analyzed at the stage of bail. Applicability of embargo of Section 37 of NDPS Act - the substance recovered is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance - HELD THAT - In the instant case, there is a recovery of huge quantity of Pseudoephedrine i.e. 24.5 Kg. which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner while he was present at the IGI airport for travelling to Tanzania. In the instant case, looking into the allegations against the petitioner, quantity of the substance recovered and also the fact that the petitioner is a foreigner and bail of the co-accused has been dismissed by this court vide order dated 24.11.2020, no ground for bail is made out. The bail application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act for regular bail in SC No. 139/2019 registered under Sections 9A/25A/29 of the NDPS Act.

Analysis:
1. Allegations and Recovery: The petitioner was intercepted at the airport with 24.5kg of Pseudoephedrine. He admitted to being part of an international drug syndicate during investigation. Co-accused was also intercepted, accepting guilt, and mobile phone records indicated involvement in drug trafficking.

2. Contentions of Petitioner: Petitioner's counsel argued procedural violations in sample collection and notice issuance under Section 50 NDPS Act. Additionally, petitioner claimed innocence, clean antecedents, and argued against the applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act embargo.

3. Judicial Precedents: Petitioner's counsel relied on specific judgments, emphasizing the petitioner's innocence and procedural irregularities. Respondent's counsel cited various judgments to highlight the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner's potential flight risk due to being a foreigner.

4. Court's Decision: The Court rejected the petitioner's contentions regarding procedural violations, emphasizing that such issues are to be addressed during trial, not at the bail stage. Considering the substantial quantity of Pseudoephedrine recovered, the allegations, and the petitioner being a foreigner with a dismissed co-accused, the bail application was dismissed.

5. Precedential Value: The Court clarified that judicial precedents must be applied based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach rather than a mechanical application of legal principles.

6. Final Remarks: The Court made it clear that the dismissal of the bail application does not imply any opinion on the case's merits, maintaining a neutral stance on the ongoing legal proceedings.