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

2024 Supreme(Manipur) 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Golmei Gaiphulshillu, J.
Salauddin - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, represented by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) - Respondent
Bail Application No. 32 of 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Worthing, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. W. Darakishore, Senior PCCG

The court established that the seriousness of narcotic offenses under the NDPS Act dictates strict bail conditions, emphasizing societal interest and ongoing investigations over the accused's personal circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)

(C), 25, and 37 - Bail application rejected as accused was found in possession of commercial quantity (1191.2 kg) of contraband, leading to serious implications and ongoing investigation - The seriousness of the offence necessitates a strict view against bail in NDPS cases - Mere poverty or being the sole breadwinner does not constitute a valid ground for release. (Paras 12, 14)

(B) Bail - Conditions - Bail cannot be granted merely on the basis of no past criminal history and will adversely affect society. (Paras 10, 12)

(C) Decision of Ld. Special Judge well-founded, having applied relevant provisions of law and precedent cases from Apex Court in rejecting bail. (Paras 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 02.06.2022 for transporting banned contraband (ganja) while acting as a driver, having claimed ignorance of the contraband's presence in his truck, which was loaded with other scrap materials.

Findings of Court:
No basis established for granting bail; the societal interest and ongoing investigations weigh against release.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act justified the denial of bail despite the petitioner’s claims of poverty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that being the sole breadwinner is not enough to warrant bail in light of the serious narcotics offence, affirming strict interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in denying bail.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. bail application context and details (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondent's objections and legal arguments (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. bail application decision and rationale (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

Golmei Gaiphulshillu, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Worthing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. W. Darakishore, learned senior PCCG appearing for the respondent at length.

2. The present Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC, r/w Section 167(2) CrPC & Section 37 ND&PS, Act with a prayer inter-alia for releasing the accused/petitioner on bail.

The prayer of the application reads as follows:

“(i) consider this bail application and call for record/reports from the court below; No. 8/NCB/IMPL/2022.

(ii) enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail with conditions.

(iii) pass any other appropriate order(s) as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

3. Briefs of the case:

The accused/petitioner was arrested along with other co-accused by a team of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on 02.06.2022 on the strength of a complaint information dated 01.02.2022 with an allegation of transporting banned contraband (ganja).

The accused/petitioner is a professional driver who is engaged in transporting items such rice, carton scraps, plastic scraps etc. And with his meager earnings, the accused/petitioner runs a family consisting of 6(six) minor children and a wife who is a mere housewife. Since, his arrest on 02.06.2022 till the filling of this instant, petition, the accused/petitioner has been languishing in jail. On 27.02.2023, an application under Section 439 CrPC r/w Section 167(2) was filed before the Hon’ble Court of the Special Judge, ND&PS, Court, Senapati being Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 26 of 2023 with a prayer to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. However, the same was rejected by the Court of Special Judge (ND&PS), Senapati vide its order dated 17.04.2023.

During the pendency of the Bail Application filed by the accused/petitioner, the Special Public Prosecutor, Narcotics Control Bureau filed an application dated 25.03.2023, praying for extension of time so as to enable the investigation of the newly arrested accused namely Shri M. Jayanta Singh and Shri Livingstone Ngakang and the same was allowed by the Court of the Special Judge (ND&PS), Senapati vide order dated 27.03.2023, thereby vitiating the bail application dated 27.02.2023 filed by the accused/petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 17.04.2023. Hence, the present petition is filed praying for enlarging the accused/petitioner on bail with conditions as the court may deem fit and proper.

4. In favour of his case, the petitioner filed the following documents:

1. True copy of the Complaint information dated 01.06.2022. (Annexure – A/1).

2. True copy of the Bail Application dated 27.02.2023. (Annexure – A/2).

3. True copy of the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Special Judge (ND & PS), Senapati, Manipur. (Annexure – A/3).

4. True copy of the application dated 25.03.2023 filed by the Union of India for extension of time for investigation (Annexure – A/4).

5. True copy of the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Special Judge (ND & PS), Senapati, Manipur allowing extension of time for investigation. (Annexure – A/5).

5. The learned senior PCCG appearing for the respondent has filed objection to the present application as thus:

“1. That, at the very outset, the Respondent herein vehemently oppose and deny all the averments and contentions in the instant application made by the petitioner. Save and except those which are specifically admitted herein. Anything that has not been specifically admitted is hereby denied. Nothing shall be deemed to be admitted for want of specific traverse. The Respondents reserve their right to file a detailed reply and submissions at a subsequent stage.

2. That before submitting a para-wise comment, the answering respondent would like to highlight the factual matrix of the case in brief

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