Prolonged detention under NDPS Act violates Article 21 rights, allowing bail despite statutory restrictions when trial delays and co-accused releases justify constitutional override.

ORDER :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. By way of this successive bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the accused Denish Surendra Jota is seeking regular bail in connection with the FIR being I.CR. No. 11210015200082 of 2020 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22 (c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act,1985, (herein after referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’ for short ).

2. The applicant herein, arrested on 27.11.2021. Chargesheet against the applicant is filed on 20.05.2022, which culminated into Special NDPS Case No. 28of 2022.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that, the police officials of the DCB Police Station, Surat received secrete information that the accused no. 1 Salman @ Aman Mohd. Hanif Zaveri, residents of Surat, is going in his car from Kuwada Tea Point to Surat City, for selling and transpiration of psychotropic substance. The information received on 22.09.2020 and same was noted down by the Officer and after following the procedure, the raid was conducted. The accused Salman was intercepted at the place mentioned in the information and during the proceedings, the narcotic substance mephedrone 1011.82 Gm., which is commercial in quantity found and recovered from the conscious possession of the accused no. 1 Salman. The contraband seized in the presence of panchas and at relevant time, the accused no. 1 was carrying 5 mobile phones which were also seized by the officials. During the investigation, it reveals that the accused no. 1 being a paddler, selling the narcotic substance through co- accused and huge network uncovered and accordingly, police officials recovered and seized 6 different diaries wherein, the names of the purchasers and seller with the quantity of the narcotic drugs and the financial transactions found, having been maintained by the accused no. 1. The specimen signature and hand writing of the accused no. 1 was taken for the purpose of examination of the handwriting of the diaries. The five cell phones found from the accused no. 1, were also sent for forensic science laboratory, the details of CDR have also been obtained from the different service providers and upon analysis of the CDR details and considering the evidence of the diaries, the investigating agency recorded statements of various persons who are either drug edicts or purchaser of the contraband drugs for their financial vested interest. During the course of investigation, it reveals that, the seized contraband drugs, was to be given to co-accused for further sale in the market. In all, 19 accused on the different dates have been arrested, against whom, chargesheets came to be filed before the Special Court.

So far, role of present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that, the applicant is drugs edict and was purchasing the contraband substance from the accused no. 1 for himself and to sell purpose. After his arrest, it reveals that, either he made payment for purchase in cash or used Google pay or Pay-tm through witnesses. During the investigation, the witnesses namely Rajkumar Roopchand, Rajat Nirmal Kumar, Prit Prakashbhai, Salia Musa, Nidhika Badriprasad, Shivendra Rajendrasinh and others have categorically, stated that the applicant – accused is drug edict and was selling the contraband to them as well as different persons after procuring the same from accused no. 1. It is case of the prosecution that, the applicant accused was in constant touch on different mobile phones with the accused no. 1 and conversation of the phones reveals the fact of doing business of contraband. The name of the applicant accused is also found in the diary marked ‘D1’, ‘D2’, ‘N2’ and ‘N3’, wherein, his reference was made for accounting purpose.

In such circumstances, it is alleged by the prosecution that, there is sufficient evidence found against the applicant that, the contraband recovered from accused no. 1, was in the