2025 (1) TMI 1366 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail denied for drug trafficking charges under Section 37 NDPS Act due to international conspiracy evidence

Mohit Jaiswal Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation

Mohit Jaiswal Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation - 2025:DHC:474 ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal issue considered by the Court was whether the Applicant, Mohit Jaiswal, should be granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Specifically, the Court examined:Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant was not guilty of the alleged offenses under the NDPS Act.Whether the Applicant was likely to commit any offense while on bail, as per the conditions set out in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.The nature and gravity of the offenses, and the evidence linking the Applicant to the alleged drug trafficking network.The implications of the Applicant's release on the ongoing investigation into the larger drug trafficking conspiracy.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Relevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe Court analyzed the legal framework under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The Court also considered precedents such as Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, which outline the principles for determining conscious possession and the considerations for bail in serious offenses.2. Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Court emphasized that the Applicant's actions, such as inquiring about the parcels, attempting to collect them, and fleeing upon sensing the CBI's presence, indicated a conscious possession of the contraband. The Court found that these actions, coupled with the Applicant's admission of acting under instructions from his brother-in-law, established a prima facie case of knowledge and intent.3. Key Evidence and FindingsThe evidence against the Applicant included his attempt to collect parcels containing MDMA, statements from the Postman confirming the Applicant's inquiries and actions, and the Applicant's own disclosure statement. The Court noted that the Applicant's conduct at the Post Office, including concealing his identity, supported the inference of guilty intent.4. Application of Law to FactsThe Court applied the principles of conscious possession as outlined in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, determining that the Applicant's actions demonstrated awareness and control over the contraband. The Court found that the Applicant's involvement in the collection of parcels, despite not being the consignee, suggested active participation in the drug trafficking network.5. Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Applicant's counsel argued that he was merely assisting his brother-in-law and lacked knowledge of the parcels' contents. However, the Court found this argument unpersuasive, noting the Applicant's actions and the absence of credible evidence supporting his claim of ignorance. The Court distinguished the present case from Sunil Kumar v. DRI, where the accused lacked conscious involvement.6. ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the Applicant had not met the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail. The allegations were grave, and there was credible evidence linking the Applicant to a larger conspiracy. The ongoing investigation justified continued custody to prevent interference and ensure the integrity of the investigation.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that:There were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant was not guilty of the alleged offenses under the NDPS Act.The Applicant's conduct indicated a likelihood of committing further offenses if released on bail, given his involvement in an international drug trafficking network.The Applicant's actions at the Post Office demonstrated conscious possession and intent, satisfying the threshold for denying bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.The ongoing investigation into the larger drug trafficking conspiracy necessitated the Applicant's continued custody to prevent interference and ensure a thorough inquiry.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the need to balance individual rights with the societal interest in dismantling drug trafficking networks. The decision underscored the gravity of the offenses and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the ongoing investigation.