Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharati Dangre, J.
Karishma Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1998 of 2021
Decided On : 12-07-2022
Key Points: - The NDPS Act Section 37 originally made offences cognizable and non-bailable; later amendments restrict strict bail for certain sections (19, 24, 27A) and commercial quantity, not all offences (p_76, p_78, p_81, p_85, p_91–p_94) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Post-2001 amendments, the rigours of bail apply mainly to Sections 19, 24, 27A and commercial quantity; small-quantity offences may not be automatically non-bailable (p_97, p_101, p_51) (!) (!) (!) - Baldev Singh Constitution Bench held broad non-bailability, which conflictingly influenced later judgments (p_35, p_36, p_41, p_47) - Stefan Mueller and Rhea Chakraborty discuss whether all NDPS offences are non-bailable; dispute among High Courts about binding precedents (p_24, p_32, p_60, p_57) - The court in this judgment proposes to refer the matter to a larger Bench to decide if all NDPS offences are non-bailable (p_59, p_129) - Section 67 statements are discussed as admissible for investigation but may be inadmissible at trial per Toofan Singh, requiring corroboration (p_14, p_15, p_20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's apprehension of arrest. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution's case and background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. involvement of the applicant revealed through statements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. applicant's denial and explanations regarding contraband. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments by both parties regarding admissibility. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. court's analysis on the need for custodial interrogation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. court confirms prior protection timelines. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. previous conflicting views addressed. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. details about specific cases and references. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. emphasis placed on binding precedent. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 11. discussing the legislative intent behind ndps. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 12. conclusion on need for larger bench reference. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
ORDER
1. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with C.R. No.16 of 2020 instituted by the Narcotic Control Bureau ('NCB'), Mumbai Zone Unit, accusing her of committing offences punishable under Sections 8 (c), 20(b)(ii), 27A, 28 and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').
2. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shreeram Shirsat, learned counsel appearing for the NCB. With the assistance of the respective counsel, I have perused the material placed on record.
3. The prosecution case in brief can be stated to be as under:
On 28.08.2020, a team of NCB, Mumbai and NCB Hqrs, New Delhi apprehended two person named Abbas Ramzan Ali Lakhani S/o. Ramzan Ali Lakhani R/o. 162 Palm Villa, Convent Road, Pali Naka, Bandra (w), Mumbai-50 aged 21, along with 46 grams of mariguana/ganja at Father Peter Pereira Road, Sonapur Lane in front of Old Kurla Gaon main entrance gate. Abbas told that he has purchased the drug from one person namely Karn Arora R/o of Powai. The NCB team along with Abbas identified and apprehended Karn Arora S/o Vijay Arora R/o. Flat No.1408, Zinnia, Nahar Amrit Shakti, Chandivali, Powai, Mumbai-72 and recovered 13 gram of ganja on 28.08.2020 under Panchanama dated 28.08.2020 from his possession. Total 59 gram of ganja was recovered and both were arrested. Based on disclosure by accused namely Abbas Lakhani and Karn Arora premises of Zaid Vilatra was searched and Rs.9,55,750/-, 2081 US Dollars, 180 UK Pounds and UAE 15 Dirhans were recovered under panchanama dated 01/09/2020. His statement was recorded, wherein he has stated that the seized amount is sale proceeds of contraband and he had supplied marijuna/ganja/bud/psychotropic Substances to many persons and he had disclosed few names with their details. He was placed under arrest.
4. On the voluntary statements of the persons arrested, several others came to be arraigned as accused reflecting their alleged involvement in dealing with illicit drugs. This covered 33 accused and the name of the applicant surfaced during investigation of NCB, MZU in C.R. No.16 of 2020, on the statement made by one Sanket Patel, who has been released on bail and another person by name Karamjeetsingh. Since the name of the applicant surfaced from the statement, suspecting her involvement with the drug peddlers, on 27/10/2020, a team of NCB officers issued notice to her under Section 67 and took search of her premises i.e. Flat No.301, 'B' Wing, Poseidon Apartment CHS Limited, Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai, in presence of an independent witnesses. A total of 1.7 grams of Charas, 2.3 gms of CBD+Oil (5% CBD) and 03 empty vials of CBD Oil were seized, under a panchanama. The recovery of the aforesaid contraband was effected in presence of independent witnesses, which included the Secretary of the building, where the premises were located and the domestic help of the applicant. The mother of the applicant was intimated about the search and she was requested to remain present, b
The court confirmed that prima facie evidence is sufficient to justify custodial interrogation in drug offence cases, highlighting the serious nature of charges under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act before granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs. The c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of delay in trial on the accused's right to liberty, especially in cases governed by stringent bail conditions under special acts like t....
The court held that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act without satisfying the statutory requirements of demonstrating that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit fu....
The judgment establishes the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need to satisfy reasonable grounds for believing in the innocence of the accused and ensuring t....
The offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is bailable, and courts must adhere to statutory provisions over headnotes.
The court denied bail under the NDPS Act due to the serious nature of drug trafficking charges and failure to meet statutory conditions, emphasizing public safety and legislative intent.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail requires court satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37: reasonable grounds accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; co-accused confessional statem....
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, vehicle occupants presumed in conscious possession unless rebutted; bail denied unless twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied – reasonable belief of innocence a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
