Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Md. Kari Alias Md Jiyauddin, S/o. Majlum – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, To Be Represented By The Learned Standing Counsel, Narcotics Control Bureau – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. NawAz, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB.
2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, whereby the accused- petitioner, namely, Md. Kari @ Md. Jiyauddin who was arrested on 16.06.2020 in connection with NDPS PS Case No. 108/2020 under Section 8(c)/20(b)(C)(ii)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 is seeking bail.
3. That on 15.06.2020, at around 04.00 P.M., an Intelligence Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) allegedly received confidential information from a reliable source regarding the transportation of Ganja (Cannabis) by three individuals, including the accused petitioner, namely, Md. Kari @ Md. Jiyauddin, Ghuntun Ray, and Ravindra Ray, in a truck bearing Registration No. CG 08 L- 3066, expected to arrive near Priti Bhoj Dhaba, NH-37, Baihata Chariali, around 07:00 A.M. on 16.06.2020. At approximately 07:15 A.M., the said truck arrived and was intercepted, and upon preliminary questioning, the occupants identified themselves as the aforementioned individuals, with Ravindra Ray being the driver. A search of the vehicle revealed a concealed cavity behind the driver's seat,
The court ruled that bail should be granted due to insufficient evidence against the petitioner and the acquittal of co-accused, establishing reasonable grounds for presuming his innocence.
The court established that significant flaws in evidence and lack of mens rea warrant bail under the NDPS Act.
The court denied bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act due to the petitioner's history of similar offences and role as a financier in drug transportation.
The court established that conscious possession of narcotics is critical for bail under the NDPS Act, and procedural compliance does not negate the evidence of possession.
Possession of contraband requires awareness; presumption of conscious possession arises when transporting substantial quantities, limiting bail options under NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act and the interpretation of the concept of possession as occurring in Section 20 to 22 of NDPS Ac....
Point of Law : Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act, is uncalled for. Therefore, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.
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
