Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Anjali - Appellant
Versus
State (Gnct Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2442 of 2023
Decided On : 06-09-2023
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Section 20 - [NDPS Act, 1985, Section 20] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act and the concept of intermediate quantity of contraband. It referred to previous judgments to establish that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to cases involving intermediate quantity of contraband, and allowed bail based on this interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was apprehended for possession of ganja and filed a bail application, arguing that the contraband was planted and the quantity recovered was an intermediate quantity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was in possession of an intermediate quantity of ganja and granted bail based on the interpretation that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to such cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail considering the quantity of contraband and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to establish that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to cases involving intermediate quantity of contraband, leading to the grant of bail.
Final Decision: The petitioner was admitted to bail based on the possession of an intermediate quantity of ganja.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:
The court considered the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving intermediate quantities of contraband. It was determined that the rigours of Section 37 do not apply when the recovered quantity is classified as intermediate, which is more than a small quantity but less than a commercial quantity (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the possession of an intermediate quantity of contraband, such as 2.700 kg of ganja in this case, warrants a different approach to bail, generally favoring the grant of bail provided other conditions are met (!) .
The petitioner’s custody since the date of arrest was acknowledged, and it was noted that the investigation had concluded with the filing of a chargesheet, which is relevant for bail considerations (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that previous judgments support the view that the absence of previous adverse antecedents and the classification of the quantity as intermediate favor bail, provided the petitioner complies with certain conditions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Conditions for bail include furnishing a personal bond, ensuring the petitioner does not leave the country, appears before the trial court as directed, keeps the mobile phone operational, and refrains from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the earlier bail application but granted bail in the present case based on the interpretation that Section 37's rigours are not applicable, and considering the specific circumstances such as the quantity recovered and the petitioner’s custodial period (!) (!) .
The decision underscores that in cases involving intermediate quantities, the strict application of certain provisions of the NDPS Act may be relaxed, especially when other factors favor bail (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal aspects.
JUDGMENT
1. The present bail application is filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR bearing no. 0518/2023 registered at P.S. Shahbad Dairy, Delhi under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act").
2. The perusal of FIR bearing no.0518/2023 dated 15.05.2023 registered under section 20 of NDPS Act reflects that HC Vinod Kumar on receipt of secret information on 15.05.2023 at around 11:30 A.M., apprehended the petitioner/applicant Anjali, resident of House no. B-137, Amar Jyoti Colony, Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi, who was stated to be indulged in the supply of ganja in Delhi, when she came outside her house at around 01:20 P.M. to deliver ganja to someone. The secret information was reduced to writing for compliance of section 42 of NDPS Act and thereafter a raiding party was prepared on the direction of senior officers. The raiding party proceeded towards the informed place alongwith necessary equipments and the secret informer and reached there at around 01:10 P.M. Inspite of request, the public persons refused to join raiding party after citing their difficulties. At about 01:19 P.M., one woman came outside the informed place i.e. House no. B-137, Amar Jyoti Colony, Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi and was standing near the gate of the abovementioned house carrying an orange coloured plastic bag in her hand. She was identified by the informer as Anjali i.e. the petitioner/applicant. The raiding party apprehended her. Notice under section 50 of NDPS Act was also given to her. The petitioner/applicant was found in possession of 2.700 kilograms of ganja.
3. The petitioner/applicant filed a bail application before the Sessions Court bearing Bail Regn. no. 1675/2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the court of Sh. Dhirendra Rana, ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/applicant argued that the petitioner/applicant is in judicial custody since 15.05.2023 and after conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet has already been filed. He further argued that the contraband was planted on the petitioner/applicant and the quantity of ganja recovered from the petitioner/applicant is 2.700 kg which is an `intermediate quantity' i.e. more than small quantity but less than commercial quantity. The counsel for the petitioner/applicant seeks the grant of regular bail to the petitioner/applicant on the ground that the rigour of section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable in cases where the quantity of contraband recovered is an intermediate quantity. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/applicant cited the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application no. 1538/2022 titled as Anita Vs State (NCT of Delhi) wherein it was observed as under:
5. In the present case, the recovery made from the applicant is 50 grams of Heroine from the cupboard of her house. The applicant has been in custody since 25.06.2021.
xxx xxx xxx
7. Since only 50 grams of Heroine was recovered from the petitioner, the same comes within the `intermediate' quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. The applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi, namely, H. No. E-1681-1682, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039.
xxx xxx xxx
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail...
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State argued that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. He cited the judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.154-157/2020 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.7309-7312/2019] titled as State of Kerala etc. Vs Rajesh etc.
6. The Coordinate Benches of this Court have considered the issue regardin
The rigour of section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable in cases where the quantity of contraband recovered is an intermediate quantity.
The recovery of an intermediate quantity of contraband, completion of investigation, and lack of evidence regarding the petitioner's bad antecedents were key factors in granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, making bail the exception in cases involving the recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic ....
The quantity of seized drugs and the absence of criminal antecedents are crucial factors in determining bail applications under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of bail provisions under the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving quantities falling within undefined categ....
The court established that the recovery of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not invoke the restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act, allowing bail when the accused poses no flight risk and th....
The court emphasized the cumulative conditions for bail under the NDPS Act, requiring reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to re-offend.
Judicial incarceration unnecessary for mild offenders; bail granted under specific conditions when intermediate quantity involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is a rule, and its refusal is an exception. The court emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with the interest of....
The court emphasized that bail for drug offenses requires proof of innocence and likelihood of non-reoffending, in line with stringent statutory provisions to combat drug trafficking.
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
