IMPORTANT POINT
In narcotics cases involving commercial quantities, the accused bears the burden of proving innocence to be eligible for bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

ORDER :

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 0021/2024 dated 29.01.2024 registered at Police Station Sarthal District Baran for the offences punishable under sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act of 1985’).

2. The FIR No. 0021/2024 was registered with the facts that a secret information was received by one Mr. Gambheer Singh, SHO, Police Station Sarthal, District Baran on 29.01.2024 in regard to taking contraband Doda Chura by the accused petitioner in a Swift Dzire Car bearing number RJ-01-CE518. Search of the vehicle was made and from the possession of the accused petitioner 57.980kg. ‘Doda Chura’ was recovered and seized. He (accused petitioner) was asked about the licence but he told that he is not having any such licence for the same thereafter the petitioner was arrested.

3. Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as he has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Counsel submits that the provisions of section 52A of the Act of 1985 have not been followed properly and as a result whereof, the entire alleged recovery is vitiated. Counsel also submits that neither any recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner nor further any recovery has to be made from him. Counsel further submitted that the charge-sheet in the case has since been filed. Counsel also submitted that the accused petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.01.2024 as he has remained in judicial custody for sufficient period. Counsel also submits that it is the first offence of the accused petitioner. Counsel submits that the at the time of alleged recovery, no independent witnesses were called and the recovery of alleged contraband is doubtful. Counsel submits that the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time, hence the accused petitioner may be released on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is recovery of contraband from the possession of the petitioner which is more than the commercial quantity. He further submitted that the provision of section 37 of the Act of 1985 clearly speaks that no person accused of an offence punishable for the offences involving commercial quantity may not be released on bail because at this stage it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the challan papers.

6. It is a fact on record that Narcotic Drugs ‘Doda Chura’ has been recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner and the quantity of such substances is more than the commercial quantity as notified by the Government.

7. The provision of section 37 of the Act of 1985 clearly speaks that prima facie from whose possession contraband more than commercial quantity is found, is guilty of committing offence under the provisions of the Act of 1985.

8. Bare reading of provision of section 37 of the Act of 1985 speaks that it is for the accused to show that he is not guilty of such offence. Normally, a person from whose possession some contraband more than the commercial quantity is found, cannot say that he is not guilty of an offence, but in exceptional circumstances when he could show that either he has been falsely implicated or he could show that he was authorized to possess the same, then it can be believed that he is not guilty of such an offence. In the present case, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has not raised any such argument which could convince the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence. The only su