IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Muhsin Ali - Appellant
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau - Respondent
Bail Application No. 3861 of 2021
Decided On : 25-01-2022
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Section 8(C), 21(C), 23 and 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(C), 21(C), 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution presented evidence of controlled delivery operations, seizures of heroin, and arrests of multiple co-accused involved in drug trafficking.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which makes offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. The court emphasized the gravity of drug trafficking offences and the legislative intent to prevent drug-related activities. The court found that the petitioner's involvement in a larger drug syndicate and the recovery of a commercial quantity of heroin warranted denial of bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of the petitioner's statement, the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the petitioner's role in the drug trafficking syndicate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the legislative intent to curb drug trafficking, and the admissibility of the petitioner's statement leading to the discovery of contraband.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed as the court found no 'reasonable grounds' to presume the accused as not being guilty of the offence, in accordance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The present petition has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter, 'Code') for seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No. VII/41/DZU/2021 registered under Sections 8(C), 21(C), 23 and 29 of Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act (hereafter, 'NDPS act') registered with Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi.
2. The factual matrix in the instant case, as submitted by the prosecution, is as under:
a) On 27th august 2020, the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter 'NCB') directed Mr. Chetan Sharma, Investigating Officer, for carrying out controlled delivery operation of parcels bearing airway Bill No. 1735174092 and PPa32016193974 lying at the Cargo Terminal, IGI airport, New Delhi. accordingly, on 1st September 2020, search operation was conducted, and the investigating team seized 970 grams of heroin and collected samples of substance found in parcels bearing airway Bill No. PPa32016193974 (hereinafter 'impugned parcel');
b) The investigating team conducted a controlled delivery of subject parcel, which was received by another co-accused namely Wahid ali. On 2nd September 2020, Wahid ali was arrested and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS act was recorded. During inquiry, various incriminating documents were found in his phone including images of invoice pertaining to parcel bearing no. aWBY Y0032216496 containing drugs (hereinafter 'second parcel'), which he disclosed was due to arrive on 4th September 2020;
c) On 4th September 2020, another search was conducted by the NCB team at Hotel Shalimar near IGI airport where Petitioner was staying in room no. 301 along with three other persons namely ?Muhammed Haneef T, Muhammed Shajahan PP, and Munasir Ek. all the three co-accused were arrested on the recovery of five grams of Heroin from a bag in the room. another search was conducted at the house of the Petitioner in Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Nothing was recovered in the search, however certain information was disclosed by the Petitioner, which was recorded and thereafter, he was arrested by the Investigating Officer;
d) On 4th September 2020, a disclosure report was prepared wherein the petitioner had disclosed that he was supposed to receive the second parcel and was required to deliver it to Frank's Girlfriend, Bethlehem alias Nunu at Nawada Metro Station at 5 pm on the said date. at 5:15 pm, search was conducted at Nawada Metro Station and Bethlehem came to receive the second parcel;
e) Upon being apprehended, she disclosed that a person named Emmanuel Williams who would be receiving the first parcel from Wahid ali. Bethlehem further disclosed that she was working with Peter Chibuzor alias Frank and Emmanual Williams;
f) The Investigating Officer along with Bethlehem reached the Church at Sector 9, Dwarka in ambarahi Village where Emmanual Williams came to collect the parcel from Bethlehem. Emmanual Williams came near Bethlehem and enquired about the parcel, at which point the NCB Team apprehended him. Emmanual Williams disclosed that he had come to receive the parcel at the instance of his friend Peter Chibuzor@Frank who resides in Greater Noida;
g) The Investigating Officer served the Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS act to Emmanual Williams to tender his voluntary statement and the statement of the co-accused Emmanual Williams was recorded on 4th September 2020. He disclosed that he had been doing the business with Peter and also disclosed that he knew Bethlehem who was Peter's girlfriend and was getting forged ID's for him;
h) On 5th September 2020, Bethlehem & Emmanual were both arrested. Subsequently on 15th September 2020, Peter was arrested at the instance of Bethlehem and his disclosure statement was recorded. He disclosed his drug business relations with Bethlehem & Emmanual. On 17th September 2020, the disclosure statement of co-accused Peter was recorded again.
3. On 1st March 2021, Intelligence Officer Mr. R.K. Maurya filed the complaint c
Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Union of India vs. Md. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100
The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the gravity of drug trafficking offences and the legislative intent to p....
The judgment emphasizes the strict conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, requiring credible and plausible grounds to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alle....
A bail application under NDPS Act must meet stringent conditions, proving reasonable grounds for the accused's innocence and likelihood of non-reoffending, reflecting legislative intent to combat dru....
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent conditions for granting bail under the NDPS act, specifically under Section 37, which require reasonable grounds to believe that the ....
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....
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.
The court ruled that bail under the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, emphasizing the serious nature of drug trafficking.
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.