2019 (5) TMI 1955 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail granted to Vindhyachal Pal in NDPS Act case with strict conditions

The court granted bail to the applicant, Vindhyachal Pal, in the case under Sections 8/20, 29 of the NDPS Act. Specific conditions were imposed, including ... Seeking grant of bail - Smuggling - Charas - applicability of statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT:- The offence, if any, would be against the person who had agreed to carry that goods or the consignor or the consignee of the goods. In the present case, the Consignee Ravi Kumar has already been granted bail who was to receive the said goods. The driver of the vehicle or any other passenger who had got the goods loaded would be actually liable for the said offence. The applicant has made out a case for bail as the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the 1985 Act appear to be satisfied - Let applicant Vindhyachal Pal be released on bail and on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount before the court concerned subject to conditions imposed - application allowed. Issues: Bail application under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.Analysis:The applicant, who has been in jail for almost two years, filed a bail application under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant, with no prior criminal record, was merely a helper on the truck from which the recovery of narcotics was made. The applicant cited poverty as the reason for taking up the job and stated that he was not the consignor or consignee of the prohibited goods, but merely had knowledge of their presence in the vehicle. The co-accused, who was to receive the goods, had already been granted bail. The applicant's counsel emphasized that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation and had no intention of committing any offense in the future. The counsel contended that the applicant had already undergone significant incarceration and should be granted bail based on the conditions specified in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.On the other hand, the counsel representing the Central Bureau of Narcotics opposed the bail application, highlighting that a substantial quantity of narcotics had been recovered, exceeding the commercial quantity. The counsel argued that the applicant's admission of guilt in his statement under Section 67 of the Act, along with the stringent conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii), precluded the possibility of granting bail. It was asserted that the court needed to establish specific findings regarding the applicant's innocence and the likelihood of committing future offenses while on bail.In response, the applicant's counsel reiterated that the court must have reasonable grounds to believe in the applicant's innocence and his future conduct, which had been adequately presented. The counsel emphasized the applicant's clean past, lack of involvement in the actual transportation of the narcotics, and the fact that the main offenders, such as the consignor or consignee, were already granted bail. The applicant's counsel maintained that the applicant met the conditions for bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.After considering the submissions, the court granted bail to the applicant, Vindhyachal Pal, in the case under Sections 8/20, 29 of the NDPS Act. The court imposed specific conditions, including cooperation with the trial, non-tampering with evidence, refraining from unlawful activities, and not misusing the bail liberty. The applicant was required to furnish a personal bond and sureties, with verification of their identity and residential proof. Any breach of the bail conditions empowered the court to revoke bail and remand the applicant to prison.