AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on from the security staff of the Cochin International Airport that they had seen some images suspected to be of a narcotic substance in a blue colour trolley bag, which belonged to the first accused. Thereafter, the customs officers of the Air Intelligence Unit intercepted the first accused, who was bound to travel to Doha. The blue trolley bag, which belonged to him, was searched and 1602 grams of hashish was seized from it and he was arrested. 3. The statement of the first accused was recorded under Section 67 of the Act on 27.01.2019. His statement revealed that his ticket to Doha was booked by the second accused. The second accused was summoned and his statement was recorded on 29.01.2019. His statement revealed that he had booked the ticket for the first accused for Doha as per the direction given by one Ashraf @ Sharafudheen, who was working in Qatar. The second accused was arrested on that day. 4. The statement of the first accused and the call data records of his mobile phone revealed that he had contacted accused 4 to 6. The fourth and the fifth accused appeared before the Superintendent of Customs and their statements were recorded under Section 67 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was long delay in filing the applications for cancellation of bail and that the accused have not violated the conditions of bail till this time. Learned counsel would also contend that, from the very fact that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the accused, it can be inferred that the court had satisfied about the conditions mentioned under Section 37(1) (b) of the Act. 11. As regards the first accused, learned counsel appearing for him would contend that, an offence involving commercial quantity of any narcotic substance or drug was not alleged against the accused at the time of granting bail to the first accused and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in granting statutory bail to the first accused. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that 1602 grams of hashish constitutes commercial quantity as prescribed under the Act. 13. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows: "37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail. 16. The satisfaction contemplated, regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on "reasonable grounds". The expression 'reasonable grounds' has not been defined in the Act. It means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both aspects, as noted above, is sine qua non for granting bail to a person who is accused of the offences specified under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act. 17. However, while considering an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of 'not guilty'. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the accused has committed the offence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose conditions. It is also not possible to infer from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that he was satisfied about the twin conditions mentioned under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. As stated by the Apex Court in Rattan Mallik (supra), the observation "nothing has been found from his possession" in the impugned order granting bail is not sufficient to infer that the learned Sessions Judge had applied his mind to the provisions contained in Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. 23. However, on a consideration of the allegations raised against the second accused and the materials against him, I find that there is no sufficient ground to cancel the bail granted to him. The second accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 07.02.2019. It was only on 26.10.2019, the application for cancellation of bail was filed. The petitioner has no case that the second accused has violated any of the conditions of bail till this time. 24. True, the prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the second accused is made not on the ground that he has violated the conditions of bail but on the ground of illegality of the order granting him bail. The allegation against the second ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th accused. There is no allegation that the fourth accused has violated any of the conditions of bail till this time while he was on bail. 29. True, the prayer for cancellation of the bail granted to the fourth accused is made not on the ground of violation of the conditions of bail but on the ground of the illegality of the order granting him bail. But the allegation against the fourth accused is only that, at the instance of one Yasif, he had asked the fifth accused to arrange a person to go to Qatar. The offence alleged against the fourth accused is under Section 29 of the Act. Considering the nature of the allegation against him, I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of an offence under Section 29 of the Act. There are also no materials to find that he is likely to commit any offence, while on bail. In fact, during the period he was on bail, he has not committed any offence. In these circumstances, especially considering the nature of the allegations against the fourth accused, I find that he is entitled to be released on bail on satisfaction by this Court of the two conditions mentioned under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he first accused to reach the airport. The allegation against the fifth accused is that he committed an offence punishable under Section 29 of the Act. Considering the nature of the allegations against him, I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of an offence under Section 29 of the Act. There are also no materials to find that he is likely to commit any such offence, while on bail. In fact, during the period he was on bail, he has not committed any offence. In these circumstances, especially considering the nature of the allegations against the fifth accused, I find that he is entitled to be released on bail on satisfaction by this Court of the two conditions mentioned under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act and therefore, it is not required to cancel the bail already granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge. 35. The application Crl.M.C.No.7419/2019 relates to cancellation of the bail granted to the sixth accused in the case. 36. The reason stated by the learned Sessions Judge for granting bail to the sixth accused reads as follows: "The role played by the 6th accused according to the prosecution is that he being an auto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) thereof to "ninety days", where they occur, shall be construed as reference to "one hundred and eighty days. Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days." 42. Learned counsel for the first accused submitted that, even at the time of granting bail to the first accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the offence alleged against the first accused was only under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Act. Learned counsel would point out that, at that time, there was no allegation that the first accused had possessed any narcotic substance, which constitutes commercial quantity and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly just....