Second bail application rejected in ganja smuggling case for failing Section 37 NDPS Act requirements
The Allahabad HC rejected the applicant's second bail application in a ganja smuggling case involving commercial quantity. The applicant sought bail on parity grounds, citing that co-accused were granted bail by a coordinate bench. The HC held that the earlier bail orders failed to consider mandatory Section 37 NDPS Act provisions and twin conditions required for NDPS bail. The court found the applicant had conscious possession of the recovered ganja and failed to satisfy Section 37(1)(b) requirements that he was not guilty and unlikely to commit offenses while on bail. The bail application was rejected despite parity arguments.
Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to bail on the ground of parity.
2. Entitlement to bail due to prolonged incarceration.
Issue 1: Entitlement to Bail on the Ground of Parity7- The issue before the Court is whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail only on the ground of parity of bail orders dated 14.07.2021 and 14.09.2021 of co-accused Sonoo Shukla and Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya, which have been passed by the Coordinate Bench without considering the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and without giving reasons.
14- The Court finds that co-accused Sonoo Shukla and Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench without taking into account the effect and rigour of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and ignoring the settled law laid down by the Apex Court regarding application of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereas recovered quantity is undisputedly commercial quantity. Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is also not applicable as the recovery of 'Ganja' was from the dicky of vehicles. No reason on merit of the case has been recorded for granting bail to them. The Apex Court has deprecated the practice of granting or refusing bail without indicating reason on merit.
15- Such bail orders of the Coordinate Benches, passed without giving reason on merit and without taking note of limitations provided u/s 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act in cases of recovery of contraband of commercial quantity, have no persuasive value and are not binding upon this Court. A judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity if the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains no cogent reasons or if it has been passed in violation of well-established principles of law. Therefore, the benefit of parity of bail orders dated 14.07.2021 and 14.09.2021 of co-accused Sonoo Shukla and Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya cannot be extended to the present applicant. The issue of parity is decided against the applicant.
Issue 2: Entitlement to Bail Due to Prolonged Incarceration16- The applicant's argument for bail based on prolonged incarceration is countered by the learned A.G.A., who cites the case of Union of India v. Rattan Mallik (supra), where the Apex Court observed that long detention in jail does not satisfy the mandatory requirements stipulated in clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The argument of long detention is not sufficient for bail under the N.D.P.S. Act, as held in several judgments including Vijay Kumar vs. Narendra and others, Ramesh Kumar Singh vs. Jhabbar Singh and others, and Girand Singh vs. State of U.P. The Apex Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs. CBI has held that long incarceration alone does not entitle an accused to bail.
18- Considering the recovery of a huge quantity of Ganja, the applicant's apprehension at the spot, and his conscious and constructive possession over the recovered Ganja, the Court does not find any reasonable ground in terms of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act to hold that the applicant is not guilty of an offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
19- Therefore, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected.
Conclusion:20- The findings and observations made are for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application and do not affect the trial Court's independent conclusions based on the evidence led.
21- The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C without granting unnecessary adjournments.
22- A copy of this order is to be sent to the concerned Court below for compliance.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
