2019 (12) TMI 103 - HC - Indian Laws

Accused No.3 granted bail in NDPS Act case due to lack of evidence.

The court granted bail to accused No.3 in a case involving NDPS Act offenses. The court found insufficient evidence linking the accused to the alleged ... Smuggling - Ketamine - contraband item - section 50 of NDPS Act - main ground urged on behalf of petitioner is that the seized material is not ‘Ketamine’ - other allegation that Shivaraj was trained by petitioner is based on statement of co-accused. No other allegation is made by the prosecution against petitioner. HELD THAT:- Admittedly, as per the charge sheet, 17 samples were sent to Central Revenue Controlled Laboratory. The chemical analysis report has shown negative result for presence of ‘Ketamine’. Thus, as on date, the seized material cannot be described as ‘Ketamine’. Section 37 of NDPS Act places an embargo from releasing a person accused of offences punishable for Section 19 or 24 or 27A of the NDPS Act, unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application and Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the case on hand, as per report of Central Revenue Laboratory, seized material is not ‘Ketamine’. The other allegation of training accused No.2 is based on the voluntary statement of co-accused. Though a statement made before any Officer referred under Section 42 of the NDPS Act can be used by the prosecution against an accused, it is relevant to note that the allegation is with regard to training a co-accused in manufacturing drug. No other material is placed by the Prosecution to corroborate the statement of Shivaraj. Admittedly prosecution has already filed charge sheet and petitioner is in custody since 10th May 2019. Petitioner shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond for ₹ 5,00,000/- and two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Act, Bengaluru - petition allowed. Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. for accused No.3 alleged of NDPS Act offenses.Analysis:1. The petitioner, accused No.3, filed a bail application under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. seeking release in a case involving offenses under the NDPS Act. The prosecution's case involved allegations related to the possession and trafficking of Ketamine.2. The prosecution's case revolved around the interception of a car carrying Ketamine, subsequent arrests, and seizures of incriminating substances. The petitioner was implicated based on information provided by a co-accused and the seizure of a significant amount of Ketamine from a premises associated with the petitioner.3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner adequately. Specifically, the petitioner disputed the identification of the seized substance as Ketamine, pointing to a negative chemical analysis report from a laboratory.4. The defense further contended that the allegation of training a co-accused in manufacturing Ketamine was solely based on the statement of the co-accused, lacking additional corroborative evidence. The defense emphasized the lack of material supporting the prosecution's case against the petitioner.5. The court considered the arguments presented by both sides and evaluated the evidence on record. Notably, the court highlighted the negative chemical analysis report regarding the seized substance, indicating that it could not be conclusively identified as Ketamine.6. Referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts the release of accused individuals under specific offenses, the court emphasized the need for reasonable grounds to believe in the accused's innocence and non-involvement in further offenses while on bail.7. Ultimately, the court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, especially concerning the lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offenses. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner under specified conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the legal process.