IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Sanjay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1392 of 2020
Decided On : 02-09-2020
NDPS Act - Bail Petition - Sections 21 and 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which requires compliance with certain procedures for search and seizure. The court also referred to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which deals with offences being cognizable and non-bailable. The court highlighted the legal provisions related to the quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the conditions for granting bail under Section 37. The court also discussed the legal principle established in the case of Hira Singh Vs. Union of India, which clarified the consideration of the quantity of neutral substances in determining the 'small quantity or commercial quantity' of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The court emphasized the importance of fair investigation and the prohibition of bias or predetermined conclusions in the investigation process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was linked with the recovery of 3541 intoxicating capsules containing Tramadol, a psychotropic substance, and was accused under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner filed a bail petition on the grounds that he was not involved in the recovery, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and the investigating officer and the complainant in the FIR were the same person. The prosecution's case stated that the capsules were being smuggled into the state by the accused driver at the behest of the petitioner. The prosecution also presented the petitioner's criminal antecedents related to the NDPS Act. The State Forensic Science Laboratory reported that the recovered capsules contained Tramadol Hydrochloride.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the recovery of the psychotropic substance could not be ruled out based on the evidence and investigation carried out. The court also emphasized the importance of fair investigation and the prohibition of bias or predetermined conclusions in the investigation process. The court rejected the petitioner's contentions regarding non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the involvement of the complainant as the investigating officer.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included the petitioner's alleged involvement in the recovery of the intoxicating capsules, compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the role of the complainant as the investigating officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions related to the quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the principles established in previous judgments regarding fair investigation and the prohibition of bias in the investigation process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's bail petition based on the findings that the petitioner's involvement in the recovery of the psychotropic substance could not be ruled out, and the contentions regarding non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the involvement of the complainant as the investigating officer were rejected.
JUDGMENT
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Petitioner has been linked with recovery of 3541 number of intoxicating capsules containing psychotropic substance Tramadol and therefore, is an accused in FIR No. 50/2020 dated 16.4.2020 registered under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act (in short NDPS Act) at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour.
2. Instant petition for bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred on following grounds:
a) Petitioner is not involved with the recovery of intoxicating capsules.
b) Provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act were not complied with.
c) Investigating Officer and the complainant in the FIR in question was the same person.
The later two grounds though have not been taken in the pleadings, however, they were raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the case.
3. Facts: The prosecution case is that:-
3(i) On 16.4.2020 a police party comprising of HC Arun Kumar, C. Vipin, PC Om Parkash along with C. Dinesh was on patrolling duty vide Rapat No. 38 in the area under jurisdiction of Police Station, Paonta Sahib. At around 6:15 P.M., while the patrolling party was at Vishwa Karma chowk, HC Arun Kumar received a secret but reliable information that one Sanjay Kumar (bail petitioner) is involved in illegal sale of intoxicating capsules and on his demand, one Salman Khan was bringing huge quantity of these capsules from Mirzapur, Uttrakhand in the cabin of truck No. HP 17C-0903. HC Arun Kumar was further informed that the truck was about to enter Paonta Sahib border and its search at that moment itself can result into recovery of large quantity of intoxicating capsules.
3(ii) HC Arun Kumar reduced the above information in writing in accordance with the provisions of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act. The written information so recorded was sent by HC Arun Kumar to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Police Station, Paonta Sahib through C. Vipin. Whereafter HC Arun Kumar along with other officials of patrolling party reached Yamuna barrier. HC Krishan Singh Bhandari, who was discharging his duties at barrier was also involved in the raiding party alongwith Dr. Himanshu Kaushish and Pradeep Kumar- officials of Health department deployed at Yamuna barrier on account of COVID-19 pandemic duty.
3(iii) The raiding party kept watch for the afore numbered truck. At around 6:38 P.M., the truck in question reached Yamuna barrier. It was signaled to stop by HC Krishan Singh Bhandari. The truck driver on inquiry made by HC Arun Kumar disclosed his name as Salman s/o Sabir Ali r/o Paonta Sahib. HC Arun Kumar expressed the intention of the raiding pary for carrying out the search of the truck and in that process gave their own search to Salman. No incriminating article was recovered during search of the officials/members of the raiding party. Cabin of the truck was thereafter searched in accordance with law. During the search, two transparent polythene bags were found underneath a blanket kept on the cleaner seat. One polythene contained five boxes of Pyeevon Spas Plus. Each box had 30 strips of 8 capsules each. Total 1200 intoxicating capsules were recovered from five boxes of Pyeevon Spas Plus. The other polythene contained 2341 loose capsules of PYN SPAS PLUS. In all 1200+2341=3541 intoxicating capsules were recovered from the truck's cabin. The procedure contemplated in law was followed during search and seizure.
3(iv) Suspecting that Salman might be carrying some contraband on his person, therefore, his personal search was also considered necessary by the raiding party. Provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were complied, pursuant to which Salman agreed for his personal search in presence of a gazetted officer. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Police Station Paonta Sahib was, therefore, requested to come to the spot.
3(v) All this while, the mobile phone of Salman was showing repeated calls received from one Sanjay. This tallied with the informa
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Durand Didier vs. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa
Karam Singh vs. State of Punjab
Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana
Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana
Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
Nand Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
Raj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana
Sajan Abraham vs. State of Kerala
State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.