1989 (6) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the charge-sheet the High Court ordered their re-arrest by cancelling the bail. The order of the High Court is now under challenge. 2. I do not find any merit in these petitions. But before dismissing, I wish, however, to draw attention to some aspects of the question raised. 3. The facts: On 23 March, 1988 the petitioners were arrested in Bombay by officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau. They were ordered to be produced before the competent Magistrate at New Delhi. They were accordingly produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. On 29 March, 1988 they were remanded to jail custody till 12 April, 1988. The remand order was subsequently renewed from time to time. On 10 May, 1988 the petitioners move....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it was Filed on 92 days. There is no doubt that the charge against the respondents is very serious in nature because they are alleged to have entered into a conspiracy to export heroin out of India. The minimum punishment prescribed in such offence is a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rupees one lakh. I am, therefore, of the view that the authority referred above is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Respondents are further alleged to have procured services of one H.S. Gala and a lady carrier Manjula Ben who carried 3 kg. heroin from India to USA in November 1987. Therefore it was on the basis of the statements made by those persons in USA that the respondents were arrested in India. I am, theref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary that he should be arrested and committed to custody. This is what this Court observed in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar -1986 (3) SCR 802. It was said (at 826): "Where bail has been granted under the proviso to Section 167(2) for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation in sixty days, after the defect is cured by the filing of a charge-sheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that (there are reasonable grounds to believe that) the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. In the last mentioned case, one would expect very strong grounds indeed.....