Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
SAMRIDHI BEDI — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 1562 of 2020
Decided On : 18-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Govind Korla.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Bagga, Mr. Ramesh Chand Bains.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail in cases involving possession of narcotics exceeding specified quantities.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Sections 21, 22, 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, particularly focusing on the quantities of recovered substances and the requirements for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, along with four others, was arrested under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused were involved in drug addiction and selling drugs to meet expenses. The recovered substances included Heroin and Ridley capsules containing Tramadol Hydrochloride.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovered substances exceeded the commercial quantity specified under the NDPS Act, and the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the Act. The court dismissed the bail application, reserving the liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh petition at an appropriate stage.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the possession and intent of the recovered contraband, the involvement of the petitioner and co-accused in drug-related activities, and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the quantities of the recovered substances, the joint possession of the contraband by the accused, and the failure to meet the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail.
Final Decision: The bail petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was reserved the liberty to file a fresh petition at an appropriate stage.
Key Points: - The case concerns bail under NDPS Act Sections 21, 22, 29 and the application of Section 37 for possession of narcotics exceeding commercial quantity (!) (!) (!) - The recovered powder of Ridley capsules (Tramadol Hydrochloride) weighed 600.600 grams, exceeding the commercial quantity (250 grams) under NDPS Act, triggering Section 37 considerations (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court cites the twin conditions for bail under Section 37: (i) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty; (ii) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses that the quantity of narcotics mixed with neutral substances must be considered in determining small vs. commercial quantity, citing Hira Singh v. Union of India and related notifications (!) (!) (!) (!) - The bail petition was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition at an appropriate stage, due to failure to meet Section 37 conditions given the commercial quantity and joint possession (!) (!) (!) (!) - The substances recovered included Heroin (8.38 grams) and Ridley capsules (706.200 grams total; 600.600 grams powder), with SFSL confirming Tramadol Hydrochloride, indicating intermediate to commercial quantity considerations (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The case involves joint possession and evidence of drug procurement and use among four accused, affecting bail analysis (!) (!) (!) (!) - Court references prior legal framework from Union of India v. Ram Samujh and others and AIR 2020 SC 721 for NDPS bail jurisprudence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
What is the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail in cases involving possession of narcotics exceeding specified quantities?
What are the twin conditions required to grant bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and were they satisfied in this case?
What is the court’s determination regarding the quantity of recovered substances (Heroin and Tramadol capsules) and its impact on bail?
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
1. Petitioner is co-accused along with four others in FIR No. 81/2020, dated 23.6.2020 registered at Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act). She was arrested on 23.6.2020 and is thus seeking regular bail by means of the instant bail application.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the status report as well as the record produced by the respondent-State.
3. Prosecution case against the petitioner is that:
(i) On 23.6.2020 a police party was patrolling in certain areas under the jurisdiction of the concerned police station. At around 4:00 p.m., it reached about 100/150 meters ahead of Bhadroya, where it noticed a vehicle parked on the left side of the road facing Kandwal. The solitary parked vehicle in that area with four occupants therein including a girl raised the suspicion in the minds of patrolling party personnel. It also appeared to the police party that the girl sitting on the front seat of the vehicle alongside the driver had thrown out something. Therefore, the police personnel approached the vehicle and its occupants were asked the reasons for stopping/parking the vehicle there. No satisfactory answer was given by the occupants to the queries of the police personnel, rather they appeared to be perplexed. Being questioned, the girl denied having thrown out anything. The vehicle occupied by these four persons bore registration No. HP-33B-8550. Two local persons passing the road at the time were associated as independent witnesses. The girl was taken out side the vehicle with the help of lady Constable. Search of the vehicle was carried out in accordance with law after associating the independent witnesses. During search, a substance kept in a polyzip envelop was recovered from the middle of front seats. On the basis of experience of patrolling party personnel, the recovered substance was determined as Heroin, however, the Drug Detection Kit was requisitioned for confirming its nature. In the meanwhile, all the occupants of the vehicle disclosed their identities as Sidhant Thakur (the driver), Samridhi Bedi-the girl occupying the front seat adjoining to the driver seat (bail petitioner herein), Rajat and Abhishant occupying the back seat. Further search of the vehicle led to recovery of 1102 number of Ridley capsules underneath the seat adjoining to the driver seat i.e. the seat occupied by Samridhi Bedi. The Drug Detection Kit confirmed the recovered contraband as Heroin. Weight of this contraband so recovered from the middle of front seat of the vehicle, measured 8.38 grams on the electronic scale. Entire procedure contemplated under Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act was followed leading to registration of FIR in question. All the four accused persons were arrested on 23.6.2020.
(ii) According to the status report, during investigation the accused persons including the petitioner disclosed that they were drug addicts and to meet the expenses in purchasing the drugs they also used to sell the same. The Heroin and capsules recovered from the car were stated to have been purchased by the accused persons from one Surinder Pal @ Chandi @ Veera s/o Gulzari Lai, r/o village Chhanni, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra. Samridhi Bedi (petitioner herein) also disclosed during investigation that she used to purchase the capsules and Heroin from said Surinder Pal. Sidhant Thakur @ Kannu also disclosed during investigation about purchasing Heroin and capsules from Surinder Pal. The statement was allegedly corroborated by the other accused persons as well.
(iii) Call Detail Reports of the mobile No. 88604-30908 belonging to Samridhi Bedi were obtained by the investigating agency. As per these reports on 23.6.2020 itself i.e. the day of the incident, Samridhi Bedi had spoken to Surinder Pal on his mobile No. 84274-975
