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

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Fatmaben W/o Imranbhai Pathan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No.16392 of 2022
Decided on : 23-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Chandrani
For the Respondent: Ms Maithili Mehta

Prima facie involvement in drug peddling and the need to curb drug trafficking justified the denial of bail.

Headnote:

Successive Bail Application - NDPS Act - Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 8(C) and 20(b)(2)(a) of the NDPS Act - [Section 439, NDPS Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Sections 8(C) and 20(b)(2)(a) of the NDPS Act. It emphasized the quantity and nature of the contraband found, the past antecedents of the applicant, and the potential impact on drug trafficking. The court considered previous judgments and their applicability to the present case, ultimately denying the bail application based on the applicant's prima facie involvement in drug peddling and the need to curb drug trafficking.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a successive bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 8(C) and 20(b)(2)(a) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was found with contraband during patrolling, and the applicant had a previous arrest for a similar offence.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the quantity and nature of the contraband, the applicant's past antecedents, and the potential impact on drug trafficking. It analyzed previous judgments cited by the applicant and concluded that the applicant's prima facie involvement in drug peddling warranted denial of bail to curb drug trafficking.

Issues: The issues revolved around the applicant's eligibility for bail considering the nature of the contraband, past antecedents, and potential impact on drug trafficking.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the applicant's prima facie involvement in drug peddling, the need to curb drug trafficking, and the applicability of previous judgments to the present case.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the successive bail application, ruling that the applicant did not deserve sympathy due to her past antecedents and involvement in drug trafficking.

ORDER :

1. This successive application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with the FIR registered at C.R.No. I-11208044213925 of 2021 with Pradyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot on 17.8.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 8[C] and 20(b)(2)(a) of the NDPS Act.

2. Heard Mr.K.S.Chandrani, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.8.2021 during patrolling, the patrolling party found a lady carrying a black colour plastic bag started running upon seeing the police party, and therefore, she was cordoned and search was conducted as her behaviour was suspicious and during the search, contraband was found from the lady, who happens to be the applicant herein.

4. The contraband found from the applicant was 200 grams of ganja and 11.29 grams of other contraband which upon laboratory examination was found to be a mixture of alprazolam, caffeine, paracetamol and chlorzoxazone.

4.1 Earlier, after filing of the charge sheet, the applicant has preferred bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.21458 of 2021. However, on 5.5.2021 the same was withdrawn by the advocate for the applicant as during the pendency of the aforesaid application, which was filed after charge sheet, the Forensic Science Laboratory report had come, and therefore, the applicant wanted to prefer fresh bail application before the Sessions Court and accordingly permission to withdraw the application was granted to the applicant.

4.2 Thereafter, upon receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the applicant preferred fresh application for bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.1909 of 2022 before the court of learned Sessions Judge at Rajkot and ultimately vide order dated 28.7.2022 passed below Exh.6 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1909 of 2022, learned Judge, Special Court (NDPS) and 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot rejected the bail application preferred by the applicant and that is how the applicant has preferred the present successive bail application.

5. Mr.Chandrani, learned advocate for the applicant, made the following submissions:

[a] The contraband found was of intermediate quantity and hence the applicant is required to be enlarged on bail.

[b] The contraband found from the applicant is 200 grams ganja and 11.29 grams mixture of alprazolam, caffeine, paracetamol and chlorzoxazone, and therefore, the applicant is required to be enlarged on bail.

[c] The applicant is a lady accused having two year old child, who is behind the bars since last more than one year, and therefore, considering the above fact the applicant is required to be enlarged on bail on sympathetic ground.

[d] In support of the above submissions, Mr.Chandrani, learned advocate for the applicant, relied on as many as 8 judgments. However, ultimately he emphasized upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court [1] in the case of Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. the State of Gujarat in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.5530 of 2022 vide order dated 22.8.2022 and

[2] Akhtari Bi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2001(4) SCC 355. Learned advocate for the applicant initially relied upon six decisions of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, thereafter during the course of arguments, learned advocate Mr.Chandrani restricted his submissions by relying upon the above two judgments only. Though learned advocate Mr.Chandrani has tendered the following decision, the same are not considered by this Court in view of the statement made by learned advocate Mr.Chandrani that he is relying on the above two decisions only.

[1] Laxmiben Solanki vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2008(4) GLR 2894.

[2] Birbal Prasad @Birbal Prasad Shah vs. State of Bihar reported in 2018(11) SCC 488.

[3] Ramshankargiri @Muchhad Balvangiri vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Applicat

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