IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Johri - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Application No. 3826 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Sections 21/29/61/85 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, violation of Sections 41(2) and 42, and the limitations on granting bail under Section 37. Key legal provisions include the mandatory provisions of Section 50, compliance with Section 42, and the twin conditions under Section 37.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged the recovery of a commercial quantity of heroin from the applicant and others.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, citing the recovery of heroin, the early stage of the trial, and the non-satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court also requested the Trial Court to expedite the trial.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, violation of Sections 41(2) and 42, and the satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37 for granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, and therefore, the bail application was dismissed. The court also emphasized the need to expedite the trial.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, with a request to expedite the trial.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 38/2016 registered under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act at P.S. Special Cell (SB), Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is in custody since 26.06.2016 and the charge sheet having been filed, he is no longer required for any investigation. She further submits that though the recovery of contraband is alleged to have taken place from the polythene bag held by the applicant, reading of the FIR would show that after searching the polythene bag, personal search of the applicant was also conducted and hence, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable. It is also contended that there was violation in the present case of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as the applicants denial to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was not recorded. In support of her submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Another reported as (2014) 5 SCC 345 and Dilip and Another v. State of M.P. reported as (2007) 1 SCC 450.
Learned counsel further contended that the search and seizure in the present case were carried out in violation of Sections 41(2) and 42 of the NDPS Act, inasmuch as SI Sandeep Kumar was not an authorized person to conduct the same. In this regard, reliance is placed on DD No. 21 dated 23.06.2016. Lastly, it is submitted that till date, only 6 witnesses have been examined out of total 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution and the applicant is not involved in any other case.
3. Ms. Neelam Sharma, learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. She submits that the recovery effected from the applicant relates to commercial quantity of heroin and thus, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to the present case. She further submits that as the stated contraband was recovered from a bag and not from the body of the applicant, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. She also submits that from the Reply given by the applicant to the notice issued to him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, it can be inferred that he had waived off his right to be searched before a Magistrate/Gazetted Officer.
Learned APP further contends that there was no violation of Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act in the present case, as SI Sandeep Kumar was duly authorized by the concerned ACP to apprehend the accused persons and conduct their search and seizure. The information was recorded by SI Sandeep Kumar vide DD No. 21 and the same bears the endorsement of the concerned ACP. She also contended that the CDR of the applicant and other accused persons, along with transcripts, have been placed on record of the Trial Court and as per the FSL report, the voice sample of the present applicant has matched. In support of her submissions, learned APP placed reliance on the decisions in Durand Didier v. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa reported as (1990) 1 SCC 95, State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others reported as (2020) 12 SCC 122 and Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 782.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. A reading of the FIR would show that mobile numbers of various persons, including the present applicant, were kept on surveillance and lawfully intercepted. During monitoring, it was revealed that one Ganesh Haldhar @ Mota Bhai, along with Manik Bishwas, used to bring heroin from West Bengal to Bareilly, U.P. and Delhi from one Sameer. The consignment used to be handed over to various persons, including the present applicant, Bhagwan Singh, Mujahid etc. in Bareilly, U.P., and other persons, including Islam, in U.P. and Delhi.
On 23.06.2016, a
Dilip and Another vs. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450
Durand Didier vs. Chief Secretary
Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539
State of Kerala and Others vs. Rajesh and Others (2020) 12 SCC 122
State of Kerala and Others vs. Rajesh and Others (2020) 12 SCC 122
State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & Another (2014) 5 SCC 345
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609
The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
The court emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfying stringent conditions, ensuring substantial grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and permitting prosecutorial oppositi....
The mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be complied with before granting bail to an accused arrested in connection with the commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic ....
Compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42 and 52-A, is crucial for the validity of search, seizure, and evidence collection; failure to comply can lead to the....
The mandatory nature of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the negative attitude towards granting bail in cases of recovery beyond commercial quantity under Section 37 are central legal principles establ....
The court ruled that searches conducted by unauthorized officers under the NDPS Act are illegal, warranting the grant of bail due to prolonged detention without trial.
Strict adherence to the NDPS Act's provisions regarding search and seizure is essential; failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of evidence and grant of bail.
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.