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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Madan Giri - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3566 of 2020
Decided On : 09-02-2021




Bail application dismissed due to the petitioner's habitual offending and unresolved compliance with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 37, and 50 - Bail application filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 - Allegations against the petitioner include recovery of 08 Gms. of smuggled substance - Mandatory provisions of Section 50 claimed to be violated - Alleged quantity does not constitute commercial quantity, thus rigorous Section 37 does not apply - Petitioner's previous involvement in drug-related offenses highlighted. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail is discretionary but should be grounded in reasonable considerations - Habitual offender status impacts the assessment of bail eligibility - Lack of compliance with mandatory provisions requires careful review, though not extensively analyzed at the bail stage. (Paras 3-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was apprehended after a tip-off, during which 08 Gms. of smack was recovered. Allegations indicate ongoing criminal behavior despite previous bail.

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized concerns regarding the petitioner's drug history and indicated that grounds for bail were not established.

Issues: The main issues were the alleged violation of mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act and the implications of the petitioner's habitual offending on bail eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the procedural lapses must be weighed cautiously while balancing the petitioner's history of offenses, concluding that the circumstances do not favor bail.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of drug possession (Para 1 , 2)
2. consideration of bail application process (Para 3 , 6)
3. arguments for and against bail (Para 4 , 5)
4. conclusion on habitual offender status (Para 7)

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the present bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 623/2020 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at P.S. New Usmanpur, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner are that on the basis of a secret information received on 16.10.2020 at about 6:30 p.m., he was apprehended by the raiding party from Dharam Pura Red Light near Masjid, Service Road, Shastri Park, Delhi at about 8:10 p.m. Notice U/s 50 of the NDPS Act was given to him and ACP Seelampur was called at the spot. In the presence of ACP Seelampur search of the petitioner was conducted and 08 Gms. SMACK was recovered from his possession.

3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State and perused the status report filed by the state.

4. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the search and seizure effected from the accused was in contravention with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 41 /42/50/57 NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the case has been registered against the petitioner due to enmity. It is further submitted that the alleged recovered quantity is not a commercial quantity and rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that on plain reading of the FIR, it is crystal clear that there is complete violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is a mass supplier of smack in North East Delhi.

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the state that there is no violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that it would not be possible to secure the presence of the petitioner if he jumps the bail. Ld. APP has further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is previously involved in case FIR No. 287/2018 U/s 20 of the NDPS Act, P.S. New Usman Pur.

6. As far as the contention that there are violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, at the stage of bail, it would not be proper to minutely analyze the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the documents and in depth analysis of the case of the prosecution is not to be undertaken.

7. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is previously involved in case FIR No. 287/2018 U/s 20 NDPS Act, PS New Usmanpur. The petitioner was granted bail in this case but despite that he is not mending his ways and while on bail, he indulged in the present case. So he appears to be a habitual offender dealing in drugs, so in these circumstances no ground for bail is made out, the bail application is, therefore, dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top