2021 (4) TMI 362 - HC - Indian Laws

Successive bail petition denied for NDPS Act offences due to gravity of offence, lack of fresh grounds, and risk of witness tampering.

The Court dismissed the successive bail petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the gravity of the offence, ... Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Successive bail petition - NDPS Act - commercial quantity and severity of offence - Voluntary statement recorded under the NDPS Act - Use of darknet and cryptocurrency in narcotics transactions - Risk of tampering with witnesses and absconding - Previous dismissal of bail application as a determinative factorBail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Successive bail petition - Previous dismissal of bail application as a determinative factor - Whether the petitioner has produced any fresh or additional ground to reopen a previously dismissed bail application. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the record of the earlier dismissal of the petition (Crl.P.No.4017/2020) and the submissions now advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Aside from the asserted illness of the petitioner's father and the petitioner's student status and impending examinations, no new material facts, evidence, or legal grounds were placed before the Court that were not considered by the Co ordinate Bench in its earlier order dated 08.10.2020. The petition was therefore treated as successive and no basis was found to revisit the earlier adverse conclusion. [Paras 5]No fresh or additional ground has been established to warrant reopening the earlier dismissal of the bail application; successive petition dismissed on that basis.NDPS Act - commercial quantity and severity of offence - Voluntary statement recorded under the NDPS Act - Use of darknet and cryptocurrency in narcotics transactions - Risk of tampering with witnesses and absconding - Whether, on the merits, the nature of the offence, the material on record and attendant risks justify refusal of bail. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted the prosecution case that parcels containing suspected MDMA totalling 150 grams (a quantity exceeding the commercial threshold) were consigned in the petitioner's name, forensic analysis indicating contraband, and the recorded voluntary statement wherein the petitioner allegedly admitted ordering and effecting payment via darknet/Darknest.com and Bitcoins. Given that the seized quantity is significantly above commercial quantity and the prosecution material links the petitioner to the procurement using means designed for secrecy, the Court concluded that the offence is grave. In these circumstances, there is a real possibility of tampering with witnesses and of abscondence if bail were granted. The petitioner's lack of other connecting material in his favour and the serious nature of the allegations weigh against releasing him on bail. [Paras 5]On the merits, having regard to the commercial quantity, the recorded statement and the manner of transaction, and the risk of tampering or absconding, bail is refused.Final Conclusion: The successive bail petition is dismissed: no fresh grounds are made out to reopen the earlier order and, on the merits, the gravity of the NDPS offences, the commercial quantity involved, and the risk of tampering with witnesses or absconding justify refusal of bail. Issues:1. Bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under NDPS Act.2. Grounds for granting bail based on innocence and lack of connecting evidence.3. Objections to bail petition based on previous dismissal and incriminating evidence.4. Consideration of previous rejection of bail petition and heinous nature of the offence.Issue 1: Bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under NDPS ActThe petitioner filed a successive bail petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail in a case pending before the Special Court for NDPS in Bengaluru. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 8(C), 22(C), 23(C), 27, 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act based on a complaint filed by the Inspector of Customs. The case involved suspected parcels received by the post office in the petitioner's name containing MDMA drugs.Issue 2: Grounds for granting bail based on innocence and lack of connecting evidenceThe petitioner, through counsel, contended innocence, highlighting the lack of connecting evidence other than the parcels received in his name. It was argued that no contraband articles were found in his possession despite searches. The petitioner, a BBA student with ailing father, emphasized readiness to comply with any conditions for bail. The defense stressed the absence of substantial material linking the petitioner to the alleged offences.Issue 3: Objections to bail petition based on previous dismissal and incriminating evidenceThe Special Counsel representing the respondent vehemently opposed the bail petition, citing lack of fresh grounds post the previous dismissal of a similar petition. Incriminating evidence included the petitioner's admission of ordering drugs through Darknest.com and payment via bitcoins. The investigation revealed the petitioner's involvement in purchasing drugs from Netherland, indicating a lack of fresh grounds for bail consideration.Issue 4: Consideration of previous rejection of bail petition and heinous nature of the offenceThe Court noted the previous dismissal of the petitioner's bail petition by a Co-ordinate Bench, emphasizing the gravity of the offence due to the significant quantity of seized drugs. The Court highlighted the heinous nature of the alleged offence, the risk of witness tampering, and potential absconding if bail were granted. Despite the petitioner's father's health condition, the Court found no fresh grounds warranting bail and ultimately dismissed the petition based on the lack of new compelling reasons for reconsideration.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the successive bail petition, considering the gravity of the offence, lack of fresh grounds, and the risk of witness tampering and absconding if bail were granted.