SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Ansar Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
BAIL APPLICATION No. 646 of 2004
Decided On : 02-09-2005




JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

These ten bail applications were heard together as they raise common question. I shall deal with the common issues first and then with the individual bail applications. To consider the common issues I have taken a hypothetical case, which, it will become clear from what is stated below, bears a striking resemblance with the facts of each case:

A1. An alleged recovery of a suspected narcotic drug is made from the person of an accused. It is a brown coloured powder in a polythene bag. The field kit reveals that it is heroin (diacetylmorphine). It is weighed on an electronic scale and found to be 500 gms in weight. Two samples of 5 gms each are taken and placed in separate envelopes marked A and B. These samples are sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis1. Gas chromatography tests2 conducted at the laboratory reveal that the brown coloured powder tests positive for diacetylmorphine. But, it comprises only of 0.2 percent diacetylmorphine. The question that arises is whether the alleged recovery is of a "small quantity" or a "commercial quantity" or an intermediate quantity of Heroin. Is the the entire 500 gms of the substance to be taken into consideration or only the actual content of Heroin in it? It makes a big difference. For, 500 gms would qualify as a commercial quantity. On the other hand, 1 gm ( 500 x 0.2/100), the actual content of Heroin in the substance, would be a small quantity. The punishments are different and more importantly, at this stage, the considerations for grant of bail are different. In the case of commercial quantities, the rigours of section 373 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") would apply.

This is the prototype of the factual matrix (with variations in quantities and percentages) in each of the bail applications and these questions are common to all. So, an answer to the above hypothetical case will provide us with the common key to the individual bail applications. At this stage, it would be sufficient to set out, in tabular form, the details of the alleged recoveries in each of the bail applications. This would give us an insight into the nature of the problem confronting us and also help in ascertaining whether these are truly recoveries of "commercial quantities" of heroin, which they purport to be:-

S. No.

Bail Application No.

Petitioner's name (in custody since)

Weight of substance allegedly recovered

Percentage of Diacetyl-morphine (heroin) in substance

Actual weight of Diacetyl-morphine (heroin) allegedly recovered

1

646/2004

Ansar Ahmed (5.1.2002)

500 gms

0.61%

3.05 gms

2

1069/2004

Satish Kumar()

300 gms

0.20%

0.60 gms

3

1282/2004

Raj Rani @ Raj Bala ()

625 gms

7.80%

48.75 gms

4

23/2005

Akhil Rajat Dass ()

500 gms

8.10%

40.50 gms

5

705/2005

Gurubaksh @ Bakshi (28.3.2004)

1000 gms

2. 50%

25 gms

6

1923/2004

Sallauddin (2.8.2001)

300 gms

0.28%

0.84 gms

7

145/2005

Dule Hassan

(21.2.2003)

Nil

(2 packets from co-accused:

255 gms

55 gms

Nil

0.08%

0.23%

Nil

0.204 gms

0.1265 gms

8

164/2005

Azad Ali

(21.2.2004)

500 gms

9.30%

46.5 gms

9

530/2005

Mohd. Ramzani

(12.12.2003)

1000 gms

1000 gms

Nil

4.4%

Nil

44 gms

10

699/2005

Mubina @ Baby

(4.9.2004)

500 gms

6.20%

31 gms

A2. Coming back to the common issue in all these bail applications, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that it is not the total weight of the substance allegedly recovered that is material but, the percentage content of Heroin translated into weight that is relevant. On the other hand, the learned counsel who appeared for the State urged that only the weight of the substance recovered ought to be seen. They submitted that once the substance tested positive for Heroin, its percentage content in the substance was irrelevant; the entire substance would be viewed as a narcotic drug and consequently the total weight of the substance ought to be taken into consideration for determining whether it was a "

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top