2022 (4) TMI 765 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - Smuggling - Indian Currency - Methylenedioxphenyl - Propanone - validity of statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - As far as the question that the petitioner has been in incarceration for the last 7 years and the trial is still yet continuing, this can be one of the ground for consideration of the bail application but the same is not so in the case of the petitioner, specifically when it has been categorically stated by the respondent-DRI that the petitioner is a habitual offender and while on bail he has been booked in two cases of NDPS Act. This conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him to be released on bail simply because he has been incarcerated for a long period. The reasons given by the petitioner for claiming grant of bail become insignificant on account of huge recovery mentioned hereinabove and the two involvements of the petitioner in the same offence under NDPS Act while he was on bail. At this stage of the case, all that could be seen is whether the statement made on behalf of the prosecution witnesses, if believable, would result in conviction of the petitioner or not. But at this juncture one cannot say that the petitioner/accused is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in the charge are established - In cases where narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society and in the instant case, the petitioner has already indulged in two other cases while on bail. The other contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not been able to connect the tenanted premises with the petitioner or the panchnama are forged and fabricated, therefore the witnesses of the panchnama are not truthful, these are all matters to be looked into at the time of trial and this is not the stage to analyze the testimony of the witnesses in depth as desired by the counsel for the petitioner, otherwise the same would prejudice the case of either of the parties. There are no grounds for bail - bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act for regular bail in complaint case No. 34/06/2012-DZU under Section 25A, 29 of the NDPS Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations and Investigation:
The petitioner filed a bail application seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act in a case involving trafficking of contraband substances. Specific intelligence led to the interception of a car where two co-accused were apprehended, but no incriminating evidence was found. Further investigation revealed a godown where psychotropic substances were stored, leading to seizures and arrests.

2. Prosecution's Case:
The prosecution alleged that incriminating documents and currency were recovered from the petitioner's premises, linking him to the trafficking operation. Reports from forensic labs confirmed the presence of controlled substances. The prosecution argued that the petitioner's involvement was supported by witness statements and evidence of previous offenses under the NDPS Act.

3. Petitioner's Defense:
The petitioner claimed false implication, citing lack of evidence tying him to the recovered items. His counsel argued that recovery memos were forged, and the petitioner was not present during the seizure. They challenged the admissibility of certain statements and questioned the veracity of the prosecution's case and investigation methods.

4. Legal Arguments:
The prosecution contended that the petitioner's criminal history and the substantial recovery of controlled substances warranted denial of bail. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case involving possession of controlled substances to support this argument. The petitioner's prolonged incarceration was acknowledged, but his habitual offending behavior was emphasized as a barrier to bail consideration.

5. Judgment and Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail application, noting the significance of the substantial recovery and the petitioner's prior offenses under the NDPS Act. The court highlighted the societal risks posed by drug-related activities and the petitioner's repeated involvement in similar offenses while on bail. The trial court was directed to expedite proceedings, balancing the petitioner's liberty with societal interests. The court refrained from expressing opinions on the case's merits, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.

This detailed analysis covers the key aspects of the judgment, including the allegations, investigations, legal arguments, and the court's decision regarding the bail application in the NDPS Act case.