9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1366 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of regular bail - reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence - Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in connection with charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act) - HELD THAT - During the investigation conducted by CBI based on information received from Interpol the Applicant was apprehended while attempting to collect parcels containing psychotropic substances. The Applicant s contention that he was not in possession of the parcels and had no knowledge of their contents is prima facie unsustainable. The Applicant s conduct as revealed during investigation establishes prima facie evidence of conscious possession. The Applicant went to the Post Office in person enquired about the parcels and attempted to collect them. Despite not being the consignee he attempted to claim parcels under names that were not his own one addressed to Rohit Yadev and the other to his driver Anil Kumar. Moreover the Applicant s act of concealing his identity while going to collect the parcels by covering his face inquiring about the parcels beforehand and attempting to flee on sensing the presence of the CBI team indicates that he was aware of the illicit nature of the parcels. In the case of MOHAN LAL VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN 2015 (4) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court has clarified that conscious possession does not require physical custody alone but also an awareness of the presence of the contraband and control over it. In this case the Applicant s actions and admissions establish a strong prima facie case of knowledge and intent sufficient to satisfy the threshold of conscious possession under the Act. On a prima facie assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in the opinion of this Court the Applicant has not met the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail. The allegations against him are grave and serious in nature and there is prima facie credible evidence which links him to a larger conspiracy. Thus the Court does not deem it fit to grant bail to the Applicant at the present stage. Conclusion - i) There were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant was not guilty of the alleged offenses under the NDPS Act. ii) The Applicant s conduct indicated a likelihood of committing further offenses if released on bail given his involvement in an international drug trafficking network. Application dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal issue considered by the Court was whether the Applicant, Mohit Jaiswal, should be granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Specifically, the Court examined:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The Court analyzed the legal framework under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The Court also considered precedents such as Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, which outline the principles for determining conscious possession and the considerations for bail in serious offenses. 2. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court emphasized that the Applicant's actions, such as inquiring about the parcels, attempting to collect them, and fleeing upon sensing the CBI's presence, indicated a conscious possession of the contraband. The Court found that these actions, coupled with the Applicant's admission of acting under instructions from his brother-in-law, established a prima facie case of knowledge and intent. 3. Key Evidence and Findings The evidence against the Applicant included his attempt to collect parcels containing MDMA, statements from the Postman confirming the Applicant's inquiries and actions, and the Applicant's own disclosure statement. The Court noted that the Applicant's conduct at the Post Office, including concealing his identity, supported the inference of guilty intent. 4. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the principles of conscious possession as outlined in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, determining that the Applicant's actions demonstrated awareness and control over the contraband. The Court found that the Applicant's involvement in the collection of parcels, despite not being the consignee, suggested active participation in the drug trafficking network. 5. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Applicant's counsel argued that he was merely assisting his brother-in-law and lacked knowledge of the parcels' contents. However, the Court found this argument unpersuasive, noting the Applicant's actions and the absence of credible evidence supporting his claim of ignorance. The Court distinguished the present case from Sunil Kumar v. DRI, where the accused lacked conscious involvement. 6. Conclusions The Court concluded that the Applicant had not met the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail. The allegations were grave, and there was credible evidence linking the Applicant to a larger conspiracy. The ongoing investigation justified continued custody to prevent interference and ensure the integrity of the investigation. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the need to balance individual rights with the societal interest in dismantling drug trafficking networks. The decision underscored the gravity of the offenses and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
|
