2021 (2) TMI 376 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail revoked in drug offense case due to misinterpretation of law

The High Court canceled bail granted to the accused-respondent in a case involving offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Drugs ... Grant of Bail - wrong interpretation of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - it is contended that it is not necessary that only the complainant can file a bail cancellation application - offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 476, 120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 17B(e), 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 18A, 18(b), 27A, 27(b)(ii), 27(c), 27(d), 28, 28A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - HELD THAT:- The Court below was swayed by the fact that the purchases were made by bills and the payment was made in the account of the seller. The Court below failed to consider the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1940 wherein it is provided that a person, who is dealing with the spurious drugs, is equally liable as a person who is the manufacturer thereof. The Court below clearly failed to take into account the fact that the entire purchase bills were not available with the accused-respondent and that he had not purchased the drugs from a licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof. The bail application was thus granted misreading Section 19 of the Act of 1940 and ignoring the relevant material. The drug in question is Losar-H, which is a life saving drug, the entire sale and purchase documents were not available with the accused-respondent. The drugs were found to be spurious and the strips were having the same code whereas each strips have different code. Taking into account that the main accused, who is the manufacturer, is still at large and there is specific allegation in the charge-sheet against the accused-respondent of being part of the drugs racket, I deem it proper to allow the present bail cancellation application. The bail cancellation application is accordingly allowed. Issues:Bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. based on misinterpretation of provisions of the Act of 1940.Analysis:1. The applicant-petitioner filed a bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. The case involved an offense under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 476, 120-B of I.P.C. read with various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The contention was that the lower court erred in granting bail to the accused-respondent due to a misinterpretation of the Act of 1940, specifically Section 19(3.2. The argument presented was that the accused-respondent purchased drugs from a source not duly licensed, which violated the provisions of the Act. The lower court's decision was challenged based on the fact that crucial evidence, such as purchase bills and records, was not provided to the Investigating Officer. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support the claim that the bail order was vitiated by serious infirmities, justifying the High Court's intervention in the interest of justice.3. The petitioner further contended that the accused-respondent was an integral part of a spurious and counterfeit drugs racket, as evidenced by the charges framed against him and his involvement in the drug peddling activities. The absence of legitimate bills and records for the seized spurious drugs indicated his complicity in the illegal activities. Considering the severity of the offense and the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act of 1940, the petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent.4. The accused-respondent opposed the bail cancellation application, arguing that the petitioner lacked the right to file such an application as he was not the complainant in the case. Legal precedents were cited to emphasize the trend towards granting bail and the criteria for assessing bail applications, focusing on the accused's availability for trial and the risk of evidence tampering.5. In response to the arguments raised by the accused-respondent, the petitioner asserted that any concerned party could file a bail cancellation application, citing relevant legal judgments. The petitioner highlighted the importance of considering only relevant materials in bail decisions, as irrelevant factors could impact the judicial process.6. After considering the contentions of both parties, the High Court found that the lower court had failed to properly interpret Section 19 of the Act of 1940. The accused-respondent's involvement in dealing with spurious drugs without proper documentation and from an unlicensed source was a crucial factor in the decision to cancel bail. The court noted the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the drug involved, and the accused's role in the illicit drug racket, leading to the cancellation of bail and directing the trial court to take the accused-respondent into custody immediately.