9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent to show that the applicant, if released, may involve himself in similar offences. It is also clear from the aforesaid that there has to be tangible or ascertainable material for the Court to reach any such conclusion. The absence whereof cannot be read against the individual. The applicant is entitled to be and is released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA For the Appellant : Aditya Aggarwal, Naveen Panwar and Pooja Roy, Advocates For the Respondent : Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP JUDGMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. [The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode] 1. This is a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking regular bail in respect of FIR No.311/2019 dated 16.10.2019 under Sections 20/29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act ) registered at Police Station Crime Branch. 2. Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits at the outset that the applicant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled as Priyaranjan Sharma versus State of NCT Delhi, as also emphasizes that apart from the alleged recovery of contraband from the present applicant, the other relevant facts of the case are actually pretty much the same on which the co-accused Priyaranjan was granted bail by this Court. 8. On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel bases his argument on Article 21 of Constitution of India to submit that liberty as enshrined in the Constitution is fundamental and thus, requests that the applicant be released on regular bail. 9. Per Contra, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan submits that there is a clear and major distinction with the case of Priyaranjan Sharma in the sense that, it is undisputed that the contraband, i.e., Charas weighing 10 kgs., was seized from the present applicant namely Suraj whereas there has been no recovery effected from the co-accused Priyaranjan Sharma. 10. Learned APP further submits that it is beyond cavil that the Charas which was seized, was of commercial quantity and the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act would be squarely applicable. He submits that keeping in mind the fact that this is a commercial quantity and both the applicants were apprehended at the spot, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant. 16. This court had also, in the case of Praveen Saini vs. State of NCT of Delhi in Bail Application No. 2321 of 2022, passed on 26.07.2023 and after considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha in SLP (Crl.) No.(s). 4169/2023 rendered on 13.07.2023, Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in SLP No. Crl. 915/2023 rendered on 28.03.2023, as also judgment of the Supreme Court in Biswajit Mondal @ Biswajit Mandal vs. The State of West Bengal, Crl. A. Nos. 450/2023 rendered on 14.02.2023 held that the liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution would whittle down the rigours of section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, particularly where the applicant has been incarcerated for a fairly long period. Though, there is no doubt that the Legislature intended the provisions to be strictly applied across board, however, the liberty of an individual, in the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court have been held to be paramount in nature. The relevant paragraphs of Praveen Saini (supra) are extracted hereunder: 32. Keeping in view the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court giving primacy to the provisions of Article 21 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik 19). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry's response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country 20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were under trials. Biswajit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik19). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable............ 20. Thus, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim (supra), prima facie and as of now, there is no material placed on record by the respondent to show that the applicant, if released, may involve himself in similar offences. It is also clear from the aforesaid that there has to be tangible or ascertainable material for the Court to reach any such conclusion. The absence whereof cannot be read against the individual. 21. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
