Serious allegations of drug peddling necessitate denial of bail despite the petitioners' claims of innocence.

ORDER

The petitioners-accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.93/2022 of Viveknagar Police Station, pending on the file of XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge(NDPS), Bengaluru (CCH-33) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22(C), 27(a), 20(ii)(B) and 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Deepak.R.

2. Heard Sri.Mallesha.V, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.8 to 10. They are innocent and have not committed any offences as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They were apprehended on 24.09.2022 and since then they are in judicial custody. The allegations against accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 is that they were found in possession of about 3 kgs of ganja each, which is of intermediate quantity. These petitioners are stated to be the carriers of the contraband at the instance of the other accused. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act is not at all applicable against these petitioners. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. The petitioners and other accused have committed the offences. Initially, on credible information, accused No.1 was apprehended and commercial quantity of contraband was seized at his instance and thereafter accused Nos.7 to 10 were apprehended and from their possession 8 kg of hashish oil and 10 kgs of ganja were recovered. Therefore, it is clear that commercial quantity of hashish oil and intermediate quantity of ganja were recovered from accused Nos.7 to 10 and it was a joint recovery. The rigor of Section 37(2) of the Act is very much applicable to the facts of the case as there are 10 accused and from them different quantity of contraband were seized. Investigation is still in progress. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the petitioners/accused Nos.8 to 10 are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

REASONS

6. The allegations made against the petitioners are of serious nature. It is stated that these petitioners along with other accused are involved in drug peddling. Accused Nos.7 to 10 were apprehended on the basis of credible information and it is stated that they were carrying contraband at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners are ladies and unfortunately they are also involved in commission of serious offence of drug peddling. It is the recent modus operandi where the ladies are also involved in such heinous crime to take advantage of the liberal approach adopted by Courts in considering their apparatus for bail . Even though the different quantity of contraband were seized from different accused, accused Nos.1 to 10 were found in the railway station and there was joint re