9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 780 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of bail - Smuggling - supply of Ketazee 500 injections - recovery of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride, which is a controlled substance under the NDPS Act, and Ketamine Hydrochlroide, which is psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act - applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - In N.C. Chellathambi v. N.C.B. 2005 (4) TMI 647 - DELHI HIGH COURT , this court granted bail to the applicant in a case of recovery of Ephedrine, a controlled substance. In view of the recovery of Pseudoephedrine, which is a controlled substance, this Court is of the opinion that Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be attracted in the present case as the allegations with respect to the present applicant are covered under Section 25A of the NDPS Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 2. Admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 3. Parity with co-accused persons granted bail. 4. Length of incarceration and health conditions of the applicant. 5. Evidence linking the applicant to the recoveries. Summary: 1. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act: The applicant argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply as the recovery involved a controlled substance (Pseudoephedrine) and not a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The court agreed, citing precedents where bail was granted in similar cases involving controlled substances, thus Section 37's rigours were not applicable. 2. Admissibility of Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act: The applicant contended that the only evidence linking him to the recoveries were statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which are inadmissible as per the Supreme Court's verdict in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The court acknowledged this argument, noting the lack of incriminating substance recovered from the applicant or his business premises. 3. Parity with Co-accused Persons Granted Bail: The applicant highlighted that co-accused persons had been granted bail and sought parity. The court noted that the applicant was considered the 'main accused' but still considered the principle of parity, especially since the applicant had been in custody for a significant period and other co-accused had been granted bail. 4. Length of Incarceration and Health Conditions of the Applicant: The applicant had been in judicial custody since 21-8-2015 and suffered from health conditions. The court took into account the applicant's age, health issues, and the fact that the trial was likely to take a long time, thus favoring the grant of bail. 5. Evidence Linking the Applicant to the Recoveries: The court examined the evidence, including the recovery of Pseudoephedrine and the alleged involvement in the supply chain. The court found that the seizure of certain documents showing receipt and further supply of Ketamine Hydrochloride, without actual recovery, could not substantiate the prosecution's case under the NDPS Act. Conclusion: The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to conditions such as furnishing a personal bond, reporting to the DRI office twice a week, and not leaving India without prior permission. The court emphasized that the decision did not reflect on the merits of the case pending before the trial court.
|
