Court denies bail cancellation petitions under Narcotic Drugs Act, citing procedural flaws. Accused deemed not guilty.

The High Court dismissed all petitions seeking the cancellation of bail for multiple accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, emphasizing procedural oversights by the Sessions Judge were not sufficient grounds for cancellation. The court noted delays in filing applications and the absence of bail condition violations. It concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were not guilty under the Act and unlikely to commit offenses while on bail. The court clarified its observations should not impact the trial court's proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Cancellation of bail granted to accused 1, 2, and 4 to 6 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Cancellation of Bail for the Second Accused

The learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the second accused on the grounds that no narcotic substance was seized from his possession, and his involvement was limited to booking a ticket for the first accused at the instance of another individual. The judge did not consider the conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, which requires satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. Despite the procedural oversight, the High Court found no sufficient grounds to cancel the bail, noting the delay in filing the cancellation application and the absence of any violation of bail conditions by the second accused. The court concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the second accused is not guilty of an offence under Section 29 of the Act and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Issue 2: Cancellation of Bail for the Fourth Accused

The fourth accused was granted bail based on the fact that no narcotic substances were seized from him, and his involvement was limited to arranging a person to go to Qatar at the instance of another individual. The Sessions Judge did not address the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. Despite the procedural oversight, the High Court found no sufficient grounds to cancel the bail, noting the delay in filing the cancellation application and the absence of any violation of bail conditions by the fourth accused. The court concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the fourth accused is not guilty of an offence under Section 29 of the Act and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Issue 3: Cancellation of Bail for the Fifth Accused

The fifth accused was granted bail based on the fact that no narcotic substances were seized from him, and his involvement was limited to arranging the first accused as the person to go to Qatar and arranging a vehicle for him. The Sessions Judge did not address the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. Despite the procedural oversight, the High Court found no sufficient grounds to cancel the bail, noting the delay in filing the cancellation application and the absence of any violation of bail conditions by the fifth accused. The court concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the fifth accused is not guilty of an offence under Section 29 of the Act and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Issue 4: Cancellation of Bail for the Sixth Accused

The sixth accused was granted bail based on the fact that his involvement was limited to collecting the trolley bag, flight ticket, and visa from the third accused and taking the first accused to the airport. The Sessions Judge did not address the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. Despite the procedural oversight, the High Court found no sufficient grounds to cancel the bail, noting the delay in filing the cancellation application and the absence of any violation of bail conditions by the sixth accused. The court concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the sixth accused is not guilty of an offence under Section 29 of the Act and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Issue 5: Cancellation of Bail for the First Accused

The first accused was granted statutory bail by the Sessions Judge on the grounds that he had been under detention for more than sixty days without a chargesheet being filed. The High Court noted that the Sessions Judge failed to consider the provisions under Section 36A(4) of the Act, which extend the detention period to 180 days for offences involving commercial quantities. Despite this procedural oversight, the High Court decided not to cancel the bail due to the delay in filing the cancellation application and the absence of any material to show that the complaint was filed within 180 days. The court emphasized that the statutory bail was granted without considering the correct quantity of the narcotic substance involved.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed all the petitions for cancellation of bail, emphasizing that the procedural oversights by the Sessions Judge in not considering the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act were not sufficient grounds for cancellation, especially considering the delay in filing the applications and the absence of any violations of bail conditions by the accused. The court clarified that its observations should not influence the trial court in framing charges or during the trial.

---