IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Shubham Bhalla – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M-8476-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-08-2022
NDPS Act - Regular Bail - Sections 8, 22, 29, 60 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which focuses on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offenses charged and is unlikely to commit an offense while on bail. The court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal [2022 AIR (SC) 3444] to emphasize the parameters of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case under Sections 8, 22, 29, and 60 of the NDPS Act. The respondent-NCB opposed the bail, citing the recovery of a heavy commercial quantity of narcotics and the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery in the case constituted a heavy commercial quantity and attracted the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It dismissed the petition for regular bail, stating that the question of compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act would be addressed at the trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was eligible for regular bail considering the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the recovery of a heavy commercial quantity of narcotics.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the limited purpose of releasing the accused on bail and the parameters to be satisfied for bail under this section.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for regular bail, stating that the petitioner was not eligible for bail in the present case.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. - This is the second petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Crime Case No.23 dated 06.05.2019 under Sections 8, 22, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') registered in Police Station Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Chandigarh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first bail petition of the petitioner being CRM-M-40584-2019 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.12.2020. Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerably long time i.e. since 06.05.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner was not named in the secret information and that there has been a violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-NCB has referred to the reply filed by the NCB wherein it has been stated that the bail petition of the co-accused being CRM-M-10050-2021 titled Jaswinder Singh Grewal Vs.
4. Union of India was dismissed on 24.08.2021 and that of another co-accused being CRM-M-44719-2019 titled Abhishek Sharma Vs. Union Of India was dismissed on 23.09.2020. Learned counsel for the respondent-NCB has further contended that the modus operandi of the main accused, Abhishek Sharma, was that he purchased capsules and tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride from the manufacturer and thereafter sold it in the open market through Gurpreet Singh, Amit Uppal, Jasvir Singh and Shubham Bhalla (petitioner herein). Recovery in the present case is 2,16,400 tablets/capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-NCB that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail especially in the light of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in view of the recovery of heavy commercial quantity of narcotics. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal [2022 AIR (SC) 3444].
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, on 16.05.2019 specific information was received by T. Anil Kumar, Intelligence Officer from a reliable source that the persons namely, Gurpreet Singh s/o Mukhtyar Singh, Amit Uppal s/o Late Sardar Ramesh Chander and Jasvir Singh s/o Late Sardar Ajaib Singh, all aged between 40 and 45, were involved in illegal sale and purchase of contraband drug Tramadol under the NDPS Act. It was also the information received that a huge quantity of Tramadol capsules and tablets would be received by Gurpreet Singh near Raj Road Carrier in Transport Nagar, Ludhiana and Gurpreet Singh would sell this consignment to Jasveer Singh and others without sale and purchase invoice between 1500 hours to 1600 hours. The said information was reduced into writing and placed before the Officiating Zonal Director, NCB Chandigarh Zonal Unit. The NCB Team reached Transport Nagar, Ludhiana at about 1400 hours and at about 04.30 p.m. one white colour I-20 car bearing Registration No.PB-10-FD-6080 came and stopped at a little distance in front of Raj Road Carrier. One person from the driver's seat came out and went to two persons who were already present there and after some time, three persons came back with one cardboard box and placed it in the dicky of the car. As soon as the three persons closed the dicky of the car, the officials of the NCB Team reached near them and IO Rajneesh introduced himself and his team to them and asked for their introduction. One of the persons introduced himself as Amit Uppal, second person introduced himself as Shubham Bhalla (petitioner herein) and third person introduced himself as Jasvir. It was noticed that one person was sitting in the car and he introduced himself as Harpreet Singh.
7. The NCB team asked them as to what they had placed in the dicky. At first they tried to ignore then Jasvir Singh told the team that they had
Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal 2022 AIR (SC) 3444
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which focuses on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not ....
The limited purpose of examining bail applications under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is to focus on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict compliance required for bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for 'reasonable grounds' to believe that the accused is not guilty....
The court can relax bail provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for first-time offenders even if the quantity is above the commercial threshold, considering procedural deficiencies.
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.