2021 (4) TMI 1216 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies bail in NDPS contraband case, citing seriousness of allegations & risk of reoffending.

The court denied the petitioner's application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving the recovery of contraband under the NDPS ... Grant of regular bail - Smuggling - Heroine - Cocaine - Methaempthaine - Service of valid notice or not - HELD THAT:- Notice U/s 50 of the NDPS Act is a defective notice, it requires deep scrutiny of the statement of the witnesses and the documents and at the stage of bail, it would not be proper to minutely analyze the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the documents and in depth analysis of the case of the prosecution is not to be undertaken as it might prejudice the case of either of the parties. The question as to whether the petitioner and his co-accused were having common intention is also to be seen during the course of trial. The allegations against the petitioner are that of dealing with the commercial quantity of the contraband and therefore, rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable. In the present case, there is nothing before this Court to believe that the petitioner/accused is not guilty or he would not commit the offence once granted bail. It is also pertinent to mention that the statements recorded U/s 67 of the NDPS Act are not exculpatory - no ground for bail is made out, the bail application is, therefore, dismissed. Issues:Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving recovery of contraband under NDPS Act.Analysis:1. Facts of the Case: The case involved the detention of parcels containing Heroin destined for Canada, booked by the co-accused at the instance of the petitioner. Subsequent searches led to the recovery of additional contraband from the petitioner's residence.2. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the recovery of contraband from the petitioner's residence lacked evidence and that the quantity recovered was not commercial. It was contended that the petitioner had no role in booking the parcels and was not in conspiracy with the co-accused. The petitioner's clean antecedents were highlighted, and reliance was placed on relevant legal precedents.3. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's counsel highlighted the voluntary statements given by the co-accused implicating the petitioner in drug peddling. The recovery of contraband, the involvement of the petitioner in booking the parcels, and the presumption under NDPS Act were emphasized. Concerns were raised about the petitioner being a foreign national and the possibility of evading trial.4. Court's Decision: The court noted the seriousness of the allegations, considering the commercial quantity of contraband involved. It was observed that the statements recorded were not exculpatory, and the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act applied. The court found no grounds for bail and dismissed the application, emphasizing that the issue of common intention would be examined during the trial.5. Conclusion: The court's decision to dismiss the bail application was based on the gravity of the allegations, the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's contentions, and the potential risk of the petitioner committing the offense if released on bail. The judgment did not express an opinion on the case's merits, leaving the determination of guilt for the trial proceedings.