Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. Ramesh, J.
Bikka Parvathi - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 602 of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2022
NDPS Act - Bail Application - The court granted bail to the petitioner/A3 in connection with a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, considering that the quantity of ganja seized was not a commercial quantity and therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was seeking regular bail in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under the NDPS Act, involving the illegal selling and possession of 4.3 Kgs of ganja.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner/A3, considering that the quantity of ganja seized was not a commercial quantity and therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the allegations against them for the offence under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner based on the fact that the quantity of ganja seized was not a commercial quantity, and therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the petitioner/A3 was granted bail on certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A3 in connection with Crime No.501 of 2021 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Rural District registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS Act").
2. The above case is registered against the petitioner on the allegation they are found to be in illegal selling and possession of 4.3 Kgs of ganja and the same was seized from their possession.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is falsely implicated in the crime. He submits that no contraband was seized from the petitioner's possession and Police did not follow the seizure procedure. He submits that even if the petitioner is released on bail, there cannot be any apprehension that the petitioner would tamper or hamper with the evidence. He submits that the quantity of ganja seized is not commercial quantity and the petitioner is languishing in jail since 13.12.2021, as such petitioner's case may be considered for grant of bail.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the quantity of ganja which is seized is 4.3 Kgs of ganja and the same is not commercial quantity, as such there is no bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. But he opposed the bail application on the ground that investigation is pending.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted to the present case as the quantity of ganja that is said to have been seized is only 4.3 KGs which is not a commercial quantity, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/A3 shall be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.501 of 2021 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam Rural District on execution of self bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer, once in a week i.e. on every Saturday between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM, till completion of trial.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
The quantity of seized drugs being a commercial quantity is a crucial factor in determining the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
The decision to grant bail was influenced by the interpretation of the NDPS Act, specifically regarding the small quantity of contraband seized and the absence of evidence of habitual offending.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the quantity of the seized contraband and its classification as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act influenced the court's decision in gr....
The court considered the quantity of the seized contraband, the petitioner's status as a student with an upcoming examination, and the absence of a bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in granting ba....
Point of Law : Quantity of contraband involved in this case is only 10 KGs which is not a commercial quantity, there is no bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the quantity seized, absence of bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the health condition of the petitioner.
The court considered the quantity of contraband seized and the petitioner's period of incarceration in granting bail under the NDPS Act.
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
