TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that she might be carrying some contraband in her baggages. The passenger along with her baggage was brought to the office of the Air Intelligence Unit. It appeared that the above passenger was carrying drugs covered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and hence, the said passenger was thoroughly interrogated regarding her identity, travel plans, the goods that she was carrying etc. and her voluntary statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 3. It is alleged that the checked-in-baggage of the petitioner was taken up for verification, which was blue coloured back pack with marking PUMA on it, and two hand bags viz., green coloured duffle bag and multi coloured vanity bag. The checked in baggage had tag No. EYCL 0232008345. After confirming that the baggage was checked in by the petitioner, the same was opened and examined by the lady officer of AIU. On thorough verification, it was found that the blue coloured back pack in possession of pax was found to contain new ladies garments and other garments. The said checked in bag was found to be heavy even after emptying the sarees and garments. Hence, on suspic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o schedule-H and Katamine Hydrochloride alleged to have been possessed by the petitioner comes under List 269 of Drugs and Cosmetics. The learned counsel made submission that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. He also submitted that the alleged confession statement said to have been given by the petitioner is not at all admissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it cannot be used against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is not at all involved in the other criminal cases and not having criminal antecedents. Even according to the prosecution case, the FSL report is not mentioning the percentage of drugs in the alleged contraband article. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner is a woman. Now the investigation is completed and the chargesheet has been filed. By imposing reasonable condition, she may be admitted to bail. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions filed along with the memo dated 26-2-2014. 1. Notification dated 16-3-2006 issued by the Mini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also, the petitioner admitted that she had been to Kaula Lampur. This itself goes to show that the petitioner is involved in the transportation of prohibited articles. Since the offence alleged is a serious offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel relied upon the following decisions he has filed the memo dated 26-2-2014. 1. Customs, New Delhi. v. Ahmedalieva Nodira (2004 Crl. LJ. 1810) 2. Union of India v. Rattan Mallik @ Habul (2009 Crl. LJ. 3042) 3. S.P, Rajapandian v. The Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI (W.P. Nos. 26551-26552/2010, dated 7-6-2011) 9. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR and the complaint. I have also perused the voluntary statement of the petitioner which is produced by the learned Sr. Standing Counsel as per Annexure-R1 along with objection statement. 10. Looking to the materials on record and also the decisions relied on by both sides, the seized article Katamine Hydrochloride is not at all mentioned either in Schedule I, II or III appended to NDPS Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner checked in baggage-back pack, the same was scanned and taken to the custody of the Airport authorities. But it is the case of the prosecution that subsequently and when it was suspected that the back pack checked in baggage was offloaded by the airport authorities, it was opened in the presence of the petitioner. It is noticed that it contained prohibited article Katamine Hydrochloride. Perusing the entire contents of the said mahazar, nowhere it is mentioned that when the back pack checked in baggage was offloaded and brought to the airport authorities for inspection and verification of the same. It is also not mentioned as to whether the bag was locked and who had the key and how they opened the bag. There is also no mention that the back pack was brought back after offloading for verification, they got key from the petitioner and opened from the key produced by the petitioner. Under these circumstances and when the said contraband article is not seized from the exclusive possession of the petitioner at the time of seizure and the fact that it was already checked in and given to the airport authority after scanning, now it cannot be said that there is prima facie mat....