Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Anil Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No.876 Of 2023
Decided On : 22-03-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS - The court discussed the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, particularly Sections 37 and 42, emphasizing that bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics is not to be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offenses. The court interpreted the delay in FIR and arrest procedures but concluded that the specifics of the case did not warrant bail, leading to the rejection of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Anil Singh, was in judicial custody for allegedly possessing 5.985 Kg of Charas, with the FIR filed after a delay of 4 hours post-arrest. The applicant's counsel argued that the delay and non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs Act invalidated the arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, and the recovery was made from a public place, which did not invoke the provisions of Section 42 as argued by the defense.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs Act warranted the granting of bail to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs Act impose a higher threshold for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, requiring the court to be satisfied of the accused's non-guilt and lack of risk of re-offending.
Result: The bail application of the applicant was rejected.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
Applicant Anil Singh is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.1 of 2023, dated 05.01.2023, under Sections 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Tharali, District Chamoli. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 04.01.223, police recovered 5.985 Kg. Charas from the possession of the applicant. According to the prosecution, Charas on that date was also recovered from the co-accused in large quantity.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR is delayed by 04 hours; the applicant was produced before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours which vitiates the arrest and it is a case of non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana, (2013)2 SCC 502.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that after arrest on 04.01.2023, the revisionist was remanded to the judicial custody on 05.01.2023 within 24 hours from his arrest. It is argued that it was a recovery from a public place.
6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.
7. It is true that the police had already information about suspects at 06:53 PM on 04.01.2023. The applicant and another co-accused were apprehended and finally Charas was recovered and they were arrested at 10:10 PM. The FIR was lodged at 02:15 on 05.01.2023 at police station which is at 11 Kms. distance from the place of occurrence.
8. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of Charas and in such cases Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
9. During the course of hearing learned State counsel has produced for perusal of the Court the remand-sheet, which reveals that the applicant was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours and on 05.01.2023, he was remanded to judicial custody.
10. In so far as the application under Section 42 of the Act, in the case of Kishan Chand (supra), the search of a Scooter was made. Section 42 of the Act comes into place when search of a building, conveyance or place is to be made by the empowered officer. Instant is not such a case.
11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.
12. The bail application is rejected.
In cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, bail can only be granted if the court is convinced of the accused's non-guilt and that ....
The court established that prolonged custody without trial and lack of witness examination can warrant the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
The court established that prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psy....
In chance recovery cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, procedural requirements for empowered officers are not mandatory.
The completion of investigation and the likelihood of trial taking time can be considered in granting bail under the NDPS Act, and previous involvement in similar FIRs may not be a ground to deny bai....
The judgment established that the prolonged incarceration and the absence of criminal antecedents can be considered in granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, even in cases involving commerci....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
