Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs in the face of the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995.
Analysis: The petition was considered in the context of the stringent conditions governing bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995. The recovery from the co-accused was of commercial quantity, and the record also disclosed call detail records and WhatsApp communications indicating regular contact and alleged involvement in the supply chain. Even though the admissibility of the statement under Section 67 of the Act was contested, the Court found that the material on record was not sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty and was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.
Conclusion: Bail was declined because the rigours of Section 37 were not satisfied.
Final Conclusion: The application for regular bail could not succeed in view of the commercial quantity recovery and the failure to meet the statutory twin conditions for release.
Ratio Decidendi: In offences involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to reoffend while on bail.