Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Mohd. Vakil – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3188 of 2022
Decided On : 01-09-2023
Mr. Nishank Tyagi and Mr.Gaurav Jain, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Amit Sahni, APP for the State & SI Pankaj Yadav, Spl. staff outer district.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of the NDPS Act and the principles laid down in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case to grant bail in cases related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Bail - Section 20/25 of NDPS Act, 1985 - [Section 20/25] - The court discussed the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 21(c) which prescribes a minimum punishment of 10 years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh. The court applied the principles laid down in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case, allowing bail if the accused has been in jail for not less than five years and furnishes bail in the prescribed amount with two sureties. The court admitted the petitioner to bail based on these provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C in a case registered under Section 20/25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was found in possession of 23 kgs of ganja and had been in custody for more than five years.
Finding of the Court:
The court admitted the petitioner to bail based on the provisions of the NDPS Act and the principles laid down in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, charged under the NDPS Act, was entitled to bail after being in custody for more than five years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 21(c), and the principles laid down in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case to grant bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petitioner was admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The Present petition has been filed seeking regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 475/2018 dated 15.07.2018 registered under Section 20/25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at PS Ranhola. Further, the Chargesheet has also been filed.
2. Brief Facts of the present case are that on 14.07.2018 at 11:00 a.m., a raiding team was constituted upon receiving information that one person namely Md. Vakil who was indulging in Ganja, would be coming from Rajiv Rattan Awas Colony side via Najafgarh Nangloi Road with a huge quantity of contraband. Thereafter, on 15.07.2018 one Maruti Eco was stopped wherein the present accused was driving and on the search of the car, plastic bags containing 23 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the said car.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.07.2018 and has undergone custody for more than a period of five years and therefore he is entitled to bail, in view of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731. Learned counsel further submits that the said judgment is being followed by this court as well as the coordinate benches of this court vide order dated 07.09.2022 in Bail Appl. No. 1182/2022 titled Jagannath vs State (NCT of Delhi) and vide order dated 24.11.2022 in Bail Appl.2737/2022 titled Nabi Alam @Abbas vs State (NCT of Delhi).
4. Learned APP has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner on the basis of information was found in possession of 23 kgs of ganja and was thereafter arrested after applying all the mandatory provisions. Learned APP submits that in view of the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner may not be admitted to bail.
5. I have considered the submissions.
6. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra), it was inter alia held as under:
15...
We, therefore, direct as under:
(i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment. If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount.
(ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs.50,000 with two sureties for like amount.
(iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount.
(iv) Where an undertrial accused is charged for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 31 and 31 A of the Act, such an undertrial shall not be entitled to be released on bail by virtue of this order.
....",
The directives in clauses (i), (i) and (iii) above shall be subiect to the following general conditions:
(i) The undertrial accused entitled to be released on bail shall deposit his passport with the learned Judge of the Special Court concerned and if he does not hold a passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may be prescribed by the learned Special Judge. In the latter case the learned Special Judge will, if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the
