TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail Denied: Insufficient Grounds & Flight Risk Concerns in Drug Trafficking Case Under NDPS Act.</h1> <h3>EDWIN EMEKA IGBOKWE Versus NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU</h3> EDWIN EMEKA IGBOKWE Versus NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU - TMI Issues Involved:1. Application for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act.2. Admissibility of the disclosure statement under the NDPS Act.3. Parity in granting bail.4. Evidence and material recovered linking the petitioner to the offence.5. Compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding bail for offences involving commercial quantity.Detailed Analysis:1. Application for Regular Bail Under Section 439 CrPC Read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act:The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving the recovery of 575 grams of heroin, a commercial quantity, from a parcel intercepted by NCB. The petitioner’s bail application was previously rejected by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, and the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 30.01.2017.2. Admissibility of the Disclosure Statement Under the NDPS Act:The petitioner’s counsel argued that the arrest was based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Stanley, which is inadmissible as per the judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The court considered this argument but emphasized the cumulative evidence, including the recovery of items from the petitioner’s house and call detail records (CDR) linking the petitioner to the co-accused.3. Parity in Granting Bail:The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner should be granted bail on the ground of parity as co-accused Anand Kumar Thakur was granted bail. However, the court noted that each case must be evaluated on its facts, and the evidence against the petitioner, including the recovery of specific items and CDRs, distinguished his case from that of the co-accused.4. Evidence and Material Recovered Linking the Petitioner to the Offence:The court detailed the evidence, including:- Recovery of a black and red rectangular box marked 'Roneo Shock Absorber' and broken shock absorber parts from the petitioner’s house.- Tools and weighing machines that could be used for packing drugs.- CDRs showing the petitioner was in constant touch with Stanley, who brought the parcel containing heroin.5. Compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act Regarding Bail for Offences Involving Commercial Quantity:The court reiterated that for offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the stringent conditions under Section 37.Conclusion:The court found that the petitioner was involved in a well-organized drug trafficking operation, evidenced by the recovery of specific tools and materials from his house and his communication with co-accused Stanley. Given the commercial quantity of heroin involved and the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty or that he would not commit further offences if released on bail. Additionally, the petitioner being a foreign national with no roots in society increased the risk of absconding. Therefore, the court dismissed the bail application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
