IMPORTANT POINT
Drug offence – Once Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence to prosecute accused for offence for which First Information Report has been registered, FSL report would only be corroborative in nature to material collected and filed along with charge-sheet by Investigating Officer.

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is a second bail application. By means of this application, applicant-Randhir, who is involved in Case Crime No. 660 of 2023 (S.T. No. 33 of 2024), under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station - Robertsganj, District - Sonbhadra, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3333 of 2024 was rejected on 12.08.2024 and following order was passed:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.660 of 2023, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”), Police Station - Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

3. The prosecution story as unfolded from the First Information Report (FIR) is that Contraband (Ganja) has been recovered from DCM Truck No.HR45 B3831 in eight packets, total weight 151.600 kgs. When the police had intercepted the vehicle at Robertsganj, Sonbhadra, the driver and the cleaner were apprehended on spot who confessed that they were brining the aforesaid contraband from Orrisa and were going to Haryana.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is Cleaner of the said truck and has no concerned with the aforesaid Contraband, which is alleged to have been recovered from the truck. It is further contended that the applicant does not have any criminal history. It is next contended that necessary compliance under Section 50 of the Act was not done and the sample were not prepared and sent for chemical examination. It was lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.11.2023. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court rendered in Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2023 Supreme (SC) 658; Mangilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 Supreme (SC) 703; and, Union of India vs. Mohanlal & Anr. 2016 Supreme (SC) 82.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant was apprehended on spot along with driver of the truck and were transporting Contraband (Ganja). The recovered quantity is huge to the tune of 151.600 kgs., which is well above the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the recovery was made from the truck and it amounts to conscious possession and the necessary compliance was done. He further submitted that the sample of the recovered contraband was sent of chemical analysis and the report of FSL had come wherein the recovered material was found to be Contraband (ganja), copy of which has been appended as Annexure -1 to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that after investigation was concluded on 31.12.2023, charge sheet has also been filed in the matter.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. This is a case where contraband (Ganja) amounting to 151.600 kgs. has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and other co-accused.

8. Section 37 of the NDPS Act governs the field for grant of bail in offences which are cognizable and non-bailable. Section 37 is extracted here as under;

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that h