9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 778 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Regular Bail - recovery of contraband - 500.18 Kg. of crystalline powder suspected to be Amphetamine - retraction of statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - It is essential to observe that the date of arrest of the applicant is 21-2-2015 and that a period of more than seven years from the date of arrest of the applicant has since elapsed, the offence allegedly committed by the applicant punishable under Sections 22, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in relation to the commercial quantity of 500 kgs. of mephedrone allegedly seized from the truck, in which the applicant was also allegedly present, is punishable with Rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and to a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1 Lakh but which may extend to Rs. 2 lakhs. The alleged disclosure statement made by the applicant in terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, in terms of the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in TOFAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU 2013 (10) TMI 361 - SUPREME COURT is not admissible in evidence. In view thereof in terms of the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE REPRESENTING UNDERTRIAL PRISONRE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1994 (10) TMI 290 - SUPREME COURT , the applicant who is charged with the offences punishable under NDPS Act, 1985 with the minimum imprisonment of ten years and the minimum fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and who has been in jail for more than five years, is entitled to be released on bail, and is thus, subject to terms and conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. False implication of the applicant. 2. Admissibility of the applicant's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Legality of the truck search and seizure. 4. Violation of the applicant's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 6. Precedents and legal principles relevant to bail under the NDPS Act, 1985. Detailed Analysis: False Implication of the Applicant: The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that he merely boarded the truck on his uncle's instructions and was unaware of its contents. He emphasized that no contraband was recovered from him, and his involvement was limited to guiding the truck driver to his uncle's house. The applicant also mentioned that his uncle, who was allegedly involved, had neither been arrested nor had any complaint lodged against him. Admissibility of the Applicant's Statement Under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985: The applicant retracted his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, arguing that it was exculpatory and inadmissible in evidence. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu* and other relevant cases, which held that statements under Section 67 are not admissible as evidence. Legality of the Truck Search and Seizure: The applicant argued that the search was conducted illegally, as it was done after sunset and before sunrise without a search warrant. The court, however, did not find this argument sufficient to grant bail, given the gravity of the alleged offense. Violation of the Applicant's Right to Life Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The applicant had been incarcerated for over seven years, with only 47 out of 77 prosecution witnesses examined. He claimed this prolonged detention violated his right to life under Article 21. The court considered the prolonged incarceration and referenced the Supreme Court's directives in *Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India*, which provided for bail in cases where the undertrial had been in jail for a significant period. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985: The prosecution argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, emphasizing that the applicant must prove reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty and will not commit any offense while on bail. The court acknowledged these stringent conditions but also considered the applicant's prolonged detention and the Supreme Court's directives. Precedents and Legal Principles Relevant to Bail Under the NDPS Act, 1985: The court referenced multiple precedents, including *Union of India v. Rattan Malik @ Habul*, *Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab*, and others, which highlighted the stringent conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act. The court also noted the Supreme Court's directive in *Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India*, which provided for bail for undertrials incarcerated for over five years. Conclusion: Considering the applicant's prolonged detention and the Supreme Court's directives, the court granted bail to the applicant. The bail was subject to conditions, including the deposit of a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties, impounding of the applicant's passport, weekly reporting to the DRI office, and restrictions on leaving the area without permission. The court emphasized that the bail grant did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the ongoing trial.
|
