IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K Agrawal, J.
Paras Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1977 of 2020
Decided On : 01-07-2020
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Bail Application - Section 21(c) - [Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985] - [Section 21, Section 37] - The court discussed the application of Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and the interpretation of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) in relation to the quantity of narcotic drugs seized. The court also highlighted the legal provisions and interpretations from various Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the mandatory requirements for granting bail under the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused applied for bail under Section 439 of the CrPC for possession of narcotic drugs. The prosecution argued that the accused possessed commercial quantity of drugs, while the defense claimed entitlement to bail based on parity with co-accused. The court analyzed the quantity of drugs seized and the applicability of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused possessed commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and did not meet the statutory requirements for bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The principle of parity was deemed insufficient to grant bail in breach of statutory provisions.
Issues: The main issues were the quantity of narcotic drugs seized, the applicability of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, and the validity of claiming bail based on the principle of parity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act must be met for granting bail, and the principle of parity cannot override these statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected based on the possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and the failure to satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.
2. The accused/applicant has moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.435/2019, registered at Police Station Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur for the offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant was found in possession of 288 capsules of Spas Trancan Plus containing Taramadol HCL and 100 bottles of Onerex cough syrup and thereby committed the offence.
1. Each capsule contains 50 MG of Taramadol HCL i.e. 288 x 50 MG = 14,400 MG = 14.4 grams.
2. Each bottle of Onerex cough syrup contains 100 ML i.e. 100 x 100 = 10,000 ML = 10 litres. 1 litre may be converted as 1 Kg. Thus, total amount of seized Onerex cough syrup is 10 Kgs.
4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that the quantity of narcotic drug seized from the present applicant is more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity and in the same crime number, Ganga Prasad Sahu co-accused has been granted bail in M.Cr.C.No.331/2020 and co-accused Bolbam has also been granted bail in M.Cr.C.No.825/2020 by common order dated 23-3-2020, therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the principle of parity. The present applicant is in jail since 12-11-2019.
5. Ms. Veena Nair, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, would submit that the applicant was found in possession of 14.4 gms. of Taramadol HCL and 10 Kgs. of Onerex cough syrup containing codeine phosphate which is of commercial quantity, therefore, unless the conditions imposed in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are satisfied, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
7. The main dispute is with regard to the quantity of Codeine Phosphate in Onerex Cough Syrup which was recovered from the possession of the applicant, as applicability of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act is dependent upon the quantity of narcotic drug.
8. The Supreme Court (two-Judges Bench) in the matter of E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, (2008) 5 SCC 161 held that when any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found mixed with one or more neutral substance(s), for the purpose of imposition of punishment it is the content of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance which shall be taken into consideration. This view was doubted and the matter was ultimately referred to a larger Bench. Ultimately, their Lordships of the Supreme Court (three-Judges Bench) in Hira Singh and another v. Union of India and another,2020 SCCOnLineSC 382 have finally set at rest the controversy by holding that in case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the "small or commercial quantity" of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. Paragraph 10 of the report states as under: -
"10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Reference is answered as under:
(I) The decision of this Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj (supra) taking the view that in the mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of the neutral substance(s) is not to be taken into consideration while determining the small quantity or commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and only the actual content by weight of the offending narcotic dru
E. Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau
Sami Ullaha vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau
Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab
Union of India and another vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande
Union of India vs. Niyazuddin SK. and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.