IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
K. Lakshman, J.
Mosiea Moosa - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3484 of 2020
Decided On : 21-10-2020
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 437 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8, 21, 23, 28, 29, 41, 50 and 67 – Allegation against Petitioner – Enlargement of Bail - Allegation against petitioner herein is that Revenue Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Sub-Zone, received information that petitioner would be arriving at Airport from Dubai and she is carrying prohibited substances under provisions of petitioner herein has arrived at Airport she was intercepted by the respondent authorities - On inquiry has admitted that she is carrying some narcotic drugs concealed within her body – Held, Limitation placed by commences with non-obstinate clause operative part of the said section is in negative form prescribing enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of unless twin conditions are satisfied – First condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose application; and the second, is that Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence of these two conditions is not satisfied ban for granting bail operates – Petitioner has committed heinous offence and offences alleged against her are serious in nature according to petitioner trial was already commenced – Learned special public prosecutor trial Court could not conclude the trial due to present COVID-19 pandemic situation – Securing presence of petitioner by trial Court is also difficult as she being a South African National – Criminal Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K. Lakshman, J. - This is an application for regular bail. The petitioner is sole accused in S.C. No.51 of 2016, pending on the file of the Special Judge for trial of NDPS Act - cum - Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under Sections 8 (c) read with 21 (c), 23 (c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). The petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2015.
2. Heard Mr. Taquir Syed, learned counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. V. Gopalakrishna Gokhaley, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Narcotics Control Bureau appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that Revenue Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Hyderabad Sub-Zone, received information that the petitioner herein, South African National, would be arriving at Shamshabad Airport, Hyderabad, from Dubai and she is carrying prohibited substances under the provisions of the NDPS Act. On 30.08.2015, the petitioner herein has arrived at Shamshabad Airport, she was intercepted by the respondent authorities. On inquiry, she has admitted that she is carrying some narcotic drugs concealed within her body. She has requested the NCB Officials to take her to Hospital immediately since she was feeling uneasy. The NCB Officials immediately took her to Osmania General Hospital (OGH), Hyderabad. The doctors of OGH examined the petitioner herein and retrieved some capsules from within the body of the petitioner through medical procedure with 15 x 7 cm. size containing some white colour powder. The capsules weighed with its cover came to around 199 grams of Cocaine. The other 20 numbers of small capsules measuring 5 x 4 x cm., were retrieved from her body. The weight of each such small capsule along with its cover was around 13.5 gms. The total weight of all 20 small capsules recovered from the body of petitioner was around 270 grams. Thus, the NCB Officials have recovered the total weight of around 427 grams of cocaine. The said cocaine, a narcotic drug, was seized under the panchanama on 30.08.2015.
4. The NCB Officials have explained the petitioner herein about the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. They have also served summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and recorded her statement. Thus, the NCB Officials have arrested the petitioner on 02.09.2015 at 1100 hours for the contravention of the aforesaid provisions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities have arrested the petitioner in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. From 22.09.2015, the petitioner is in judicial remand. She is a woman, South African National; she is entitled for protection under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. The respondent authorities have violated the procedure laid down under NDPS Act including Sections 41 and 67 of the NDPS Act.
6. The Constitution of India confers rights on a person that stands supreme. Article 21 of the Constitution of India envisages that no person shall be detained in custody without authorization of law. The NCB Officials have already concluded its investigation and filed charge sheet. The complaint under Section 36A of the NDPS Act has already been filed in the year 2016 itself and, therefore, the entire investigation is completed. Since last five years, the petitioner is in judicial remand. The trial has also commenced in S.C. No.51 of 2016. Due to the present COVID-19 pandemic situation, the trial Court is unable to conclude the trial. With the said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to release the petitioner on bail by imposing certain conditions.
7. The respondent has filed counter reiterating the above stated allegations against the petitioner herein. Mr. V. Gopalakrishna Gokhaley, learned Special Public Prosecutor, would submit that the petitioner is a South
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.