A violation of procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 50, can lead to the granting of bail despite the presence of commercial quantities of narcotics.

Headnote:
BAIL - NDPS ACT - The court found a clear violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act due to the Seizure Officer providing a third option during seizure proceedings, which influenced the decision to grant bail despite the commercial quantity of the substance involved. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act in determining bail eligibility.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Pappu Suthar, is in judicial custody related to F.I.R. No.12/2020 for offences under the NDPS Act. The bail application was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:

The court noted the violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act due to the Seizure Officer's actions and concluded that the conditions under Section 37 were satisfied, allowing the bail application.
Issues: Whether the violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act warranted the granting of bail despite the commercial quantity of the substance involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural violations, such as the improper notice under Section 50, can impact the assessment of bail eligibility, even in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon fulfilling certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.12/2020, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh, registered for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the notice of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, third option was given by the Seizure Officer. Therefore, it is clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Anr., (2014) 5 SCC 345.

4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that recovered quantity is commercial quantity. He further stated that Section 37 is clearly attracted in this case, therefore benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that third option was given by the Seizure Officer during the seizure proceedings, which is clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; this Court is of the view that condition under Section 37 is satisfied in this case, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

6. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Pappu S/o Dhanraj Suthar, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.12/2020, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document