The court ruled that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offenses.

Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(c), 25, 29 – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act – Bail application – The petitioner, accused of possessing commercial quantities of narcotics, failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized the seriousness of drug-related offenses and the necessity of adhering to statutory bail conditions. (Paras 1, 6, 11, 13)

Facts of the case: The petitioner was arrested along with two others for possessing 2.040 kg of ganja and 105.9 grams of MDMA in a vehicle. He claimed innocence, asserting he was merely a passenger unaware of the contraband.

Findings of Court: The court found sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in the crime and ruled that the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be granted bail despite the serious nature of the charges and the quantity of drugs involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty or unlikely to re-offend, thus justifying the denial of bail.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

ORDER

Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2024

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘the BNSS’ for short), by the 3^rd accused in Crime No.807/2024 of the Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad, which is registered against three accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act', for short) and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, (PDPP Act). The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 28.06.2024.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; on 28.06.2024, at around 12:21 hours, the accused 1 to 3 were found in a car bearing Registration No.KL-65-C- 4955, which was driven by the first accused. When the Investigating Officer attempted to intercept the car, the first accused hit the car against a police vehicle bearing registration No. KL-01- BK-5409. After the incident, the Investigating Officer conducted a search in the vehicle and recovered 2.040 kg of ganja and 105.9 grams of MDMA. The accused were arrested then and there at the spot with the contraband articles. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

3. Heard; Sri. K.Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. It was the first accused who drove the car. The petitioner was only a passenger in the car. The petitioner was unaware that the contraband was stored in the vehicle. He is aged 27 years and is a sole breadwinner of his family. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last nearly four months, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the petitioner along with the accused 1 and 2 were found in a car, from which 2.040 kg of ganja and 105.9 grams of MDMA were recovered. There are incriminating materials to substantiate that the accused had hatched a conspiracy to procure and sell the above contraband articles. Since the contraband of MDMA is of a commercial quantity, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act applies to the facts of the case. There are no reasonable grounds to hold that the petitioner has not committed the above offences and he is not likely to commit the offence if enlarged on bail. Hence, the bail application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner along with accused 1 and 2 were found in conscious possession of 2.040 kg of ganja and 105.9 grams of MDMA. They were arrested on the spot with the contraband articles. The materials on record reveal that the petitioner was in the car. Indisputably the contraband of MDMA is of a commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the Act applies to the facts of the case.

7. Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offences under the Act. It is profitable to extract Section 37, which reads as follows:.

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for suc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document