SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(J&K) 396

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Javed Iqbal Wani, J.
Mohd. Altaf Lone - Appellant
Vs.
UT of J&K - Respondent
CRM(M) No. 435 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: A.M. Dar; Bhat Shafi; Danish Majid; Manik Dutt
For the Respondents: Sumeet Bhatia

The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offenses while on bail.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Bail - Sections 8/15/29/60 - 37 - Summary: The court rejected the bail application of the petitioner, who was accused of transporting contraband under the NDPS Act. The court emphasized the stringent parameters for granting bail under the Act, citing Section 37, which requires reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court referred to relevant case law to support its decision, highlighting the deleterious effects of drug trafficking and the need to adhere to the legislative mandate. The court also emphasized that a detailed analysis of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail in a case involving offenses under Sections 8/15/29/60 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as the owner of a truck, was involved in transporting contraband concealed under apple boxes. The petitioner had previously been denied bail and sought release on the grounds of false implication and completion of the investigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act and the need for reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court highlighted the legislative mandate and the deleterious effects of drug trafficking, and emphasized that a detailed analysis of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving transportation of contraband under the NDPS Act, considering the stringent parameters for bail under Section 37.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to adhere to the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, citing Section 37 and relevant case law. The court also highlighted the deleterious effects of drug trafficking and the legislative mandate to control and eradicate the menace.

Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application and dismissed all connected applications, listing them for a future date.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

Bail App. No. 145/2020

1. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks bail in crime Case No. 59/2020 for offences under Sections 8/15/29/60 of (NDPS) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short, 'NDPS Act'), arising out of FIR No. 570/2019, dated 02.12.2019.

2. According to the prosecution case on 02.12.2019 Police Station, Udhampur received an information from reliable sources that one truck bearing Registration No. JK03D-7707 loaded with apple boxes has beneath the said boxes concealed Poppy straw like substances being transported from Srinagar to Punjab and that upon receipt of the said information FIR No. 570/2019 for offences under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act came to be registered and that the investigating officer accompanied with Executive Magistrate, Udhampur, intercepted the said truck at Jakhani Chowk, Udhampur and recovered 15 plastic bags carrying 365 kgs of Poppy straw which were hidden under the apple boxes and upon inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Sunil Kumar S/o Dharam Paul R/o Gandhi Cam Jalandhar (Punjab).

    - During the course of the investigation, according to the prosecution version, samples were drawn from each bag containing Poppy straw and sent to FSL and that the driver of the vehicle having been implicated as an accused made a disclosure statement in presence of the Executive Magistrate that 649 boxes containing apples were loaded from Kaka Transport Sopore, whereafter, the owner of the truck took the same to his native village, namely, Pazalpora Bijbehara and loaded Poppy straw in the truck and told the accused-driver to transport the same to Punjab for sale and for doing so, promised to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the accused driver.

- According to the prosecution case, the FSL report revealed the presence of morphine in the contraband and that the accused persons had hatched a criminal conspiracy for illegally transporting the contraband.

- Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet under Sections 8/15/29/60 NDPS Act is stated to have been filed against the accused-driver and the owner of the vehicle-petitioner herein before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur, (Special Judge Under NDPS Act), (for short, 'trial court').

3. The accused-petitioner herein is in custody and facing trial before the trial court in respect of charges under Sections 8/15(C) NDPS Act.

4. The instant petition is a second attempt being made by the petitioner herein for enlargement on bail as the petitioner had earlier approached the trial court for grant of bail which stands rejected vide order dated 04.07.2020.

5. The petitioner herein while maintaining the instant petition seeks bail, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case and that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged offences and that the alleged confession of statement made by the accused-driver cannot be read against the petitioner-herein and that the said statement had not been part of the documents annexed with the challan and that the earlier bail application filed before the trial court came to be dismissed by the trial court without discussing facts and cogent reasons and that the investigation of the case is over and final report is submitted before the court and, as such, the detention of the petitioner now is unjustified.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions reiterated the contentions raised in the petition and would insist for enlargement of the petitioner on bail, whereas counsel for the respondent while controverting the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner would seek dismissal of the petition, inter-alia, on the grounds that the petitioner is involved in the commission of heinous offences and in law stringent parameters for grant of bail un

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top