SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Bharat Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 5703 OF 2021
With
Raja Chandrasekharan - Appellant
Versus
The Intelligence Officer, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8919 of 2021
Decided on : 13-12-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Bail application – Seizure of psychotropic tablets – Prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under NDPS Act – Large number of tablets that have been seized by DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract provisions of NDPS Act – In absence of any psychotropic substance found in conscious possession of A-4, mere reliance on statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain impugned order – Bail granted. (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed against the common judgment and order dated 15th July, 2021 passed by Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. SLP(Crl) No. 5703/2021 has been filed by Bharat Chaudhary [A-4] who is aggrieved by the reversal of the bail order dated 02nd November, 2020 granted in his favour by the learned Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, Chennai whereas Raja Chandrasekharan [A-1] has challenged the dismissal of the bail application filed by him under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Findings of Court:
None of the tablets were seized by the prosecution during the course of the search conducted, either at the office or at the residence of A-4 at Jaipur, on 16th March, 2020. Reliance on printouts of WhatsApp messages downloaded from the mobile phone and devices seized from the office premises of A-4 cannot be treated at this stage as sufficient material to establish a live link between him and A-1 to A-3, when even as per the prosecution, scientific reports in respect of the said devices is still awaited.
Result : Petitions for special leave to appeal disposed of.
ORDER :
HIMA KOHLI J.
1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed against the common judgment and order dated 15th July, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. SLP(Crl) No. 5703/2021 has been filed by Bharat Chaudhary [A-4] who is aggrieved by the reversal of the bail order dated 02nd November, 2020 granted in his favour by the learned Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, Chennai whereas Raja Chandrasekharan [A-1] has challenged the dismissal of the bail application filed by him under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The case set up by the prosecution is that on specific information received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit1[For short ‘the DRI’], Officers of DRI had seized about 1,37,665 tablets of different types collectively weighing 90Kgs. (approx.) described as psychotropic substances from the following four locations, all situated in Chennai:
(ii) 2 Destination, a Franchisee of M/s S.T. Courier;
(iii) residence of Raja Chandrasekharan [A-1]; and
(iv) office premises of M/s. DHL Express India Private Limited.
3. Believing the tablets seized from the aforesaid premises to be composed of psychotropic substances covered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19852[For short ‘the NDPS Act’] read with the Customs Act, the DRI conducted investigation and summoned M.V. Srinivasan [A-2] – Director of M/s 2 Destination and Propreitor of M/s S.T. Courier; Raja Chandrasekharan [A-1] – Proprietor of Ascure Pure Herbals; M. Ashok Kumar [A-3] -employee of A-1 and after recording their statements, booked them for the offences under Section 8(c) punishable under Sections 22(c), 25, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and arrested them on 18th October, 2019. Based on the statements made by A-1 and A-3 that they had colluded with suppliers in Nagpur and Rajasthan and procured tablets composed of psychotrophic substances for exporting and sending through courier service to customers in USA under the guise of herbal tablets, on orders received from Bharat Chaudhary [A-4], officers of DRI, Jaipur Unit conducted a search at his residence at Jaipur on 16th March, 2020 and seized some incriminating material. Thereafter, he was arrested on 17th March, 2020 for contravening the provisions of Section 8(c) punishable under Sections 22(c), 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act. On being granted transit bail by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur, A-4 was produced before the NDPS Court at Chennai on 19th March, 2020 and remanded on the same day.
4. Vide order dated 2nd November, 2020, the learned Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, Chennai granted bail to Bharat Chaudhary[A-4]. The reasons that weighed with the said Court for granting bail to A-4 were that :-
(ii) the electronic gagets/devices that were seized from the office of A-4 had been sent for obtaining a scientific report which was still awaited;
(iii) while 1,37,665 tablets were seized from four different locations in Chennai between 15th October, 2019 and 18th October, 2019, officers of the DRI had gone to Jaipur to arrest A-4 after five months, solely on the basis of the statement made by A-1 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act;
(iv) there was no live link established against A-4, a resident of Jaipur of having connived with the other accused, A-1 to A-3 who were all residing in Chennai and arrested from there.
(v) the test reports in respect of the seized material were awaited and it was not established whether the tablets which, as per the accused were sexual enhancement tablets, would qualify either as a narcotic or psychotrophic substance so as to fall within the ambit of the NDPS Act;
(vi) The first
Bail application – Bail can be granted in absence of any psychotropic substance found in conscious possession of accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent parameters for granting bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the gravity of drug trafficking offences and the legislative intent to p....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the restriction on bail for individuals involved in dealing with commercial quantities of contraband under the NDPS Act, and the court's authori....
Mere fact that the accused is in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration to release the accused on bail.
The judgment establishes the importance of substantial probable causes and conscious possession in determining guilt under the NDPS Act.
The court confirmed that under Section 37 NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.
The court upheld the presumption of conscious possession under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the burden on the accused to prove otherwise, and denied bail due to the commercial quantity of narcotics invo....
The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply in cases involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accus....
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.