TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....knowledge where the truck bearing No. HR 55 P 7995 was being taken; and that he had no knowledge that the said truck apart from containing Papayas contained 500.18 Kg. of crystalline powder suspected to be Amphetamine which truck was driven by one Hakmuddin @ Hakka with a cleaner named Shokat Ali. 3. The applicant has submitted further that he had retracted his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985; that his statement is wholly exculpatory; that there is no recovery of any material fact, document or contraband from him, and that even as per the statement of Hakmuddin @ Hakka, the driver of the said truck in question, the applicant allegedly boarded the truck to guide the driver to the house of Dina, his uncle, and Dina was also there in his Innova car; and as per the statement of the driver, the truck contained some articles of Sh. Deen Mohd. Khan @ Dina which were to be dropped at his house and Papaya was to be delivered at Mangalore. 4. Inter alia, the applicant has submitted that there is no complaint that has been lodged against Dina nor has he been arrested; and that the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 of the applicant is not admissible agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence; that there is the embargo of Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 applicable in the instant case and that none of the co-accused are on bail. 10. Inter alia, reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent DRI on the order dated 27-5-2019 in Vaibhav Shah v. DRI in Bail Appln. 1324/2019, order dated 7-8-2020 in Bail Appln. 2103/2020, in which the application was permitted to be withdrawn, order dated 27-5-2019 in Bail Appln. 1324/2019, whereby the application was dismissed as withdrawn, order dated 7-1-2022 in Bail Appln. 659/2019, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner seeking release on bail was declined though the Learned Trial Court was directed to expeditiously record the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 11. The DRI has further placed reliance on the following verdicts :- • "Union of India v. Rattan Malik @ Habul - Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2009, decided on 23-1-2009, submitting to the effect that the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held therein that the satisfaction contemplated regarding accused being not guilty, has to be based on 'reasonable grounds', and that the expression 'reasonable grounds' implies something more than pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be seen was whether the statements made on behalf of the prosecution witnesses, if believable, would result in conviction of the petitioner or not. At this juncture, one cannot say that the accused is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in the charge are established. Moreover, the evidence having not been completely adduced before the Court one cannot say that there were no grounds to hold that he was not guilty of such an offence. Further, the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In cases where narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court". • Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar & Anr. - 2001 SCC (Crl) 346, with observations therein to the effect :- "The contention that the liberal interpretation given by the High Court to Section 37 is justified as it affects personal liberty of a citizen who is yet to be tried is not acceptable. Considering the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontend to the effect that in view of the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, negation of bail is a rule and its grant is an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, and for grant of bail, the Court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, and that a liberal approach in the matter of bail under NDPS Act, 1985 is not called for. The DRI has thus sought the dismissal of the bail application of the applicant. 12. On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side, it is essential to observe that the date of arrest of the applicant is 21-2-2015 and that a period of more than seven years from the date of arrest of the applicant has since elapsed, the offence allegedly committed by the applicant punishable under Sections 22, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in relation to the commercial quantity of 500 kgs. of mephedrone allegedly seized from the truck, in which the applicant was also alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; the undertrial accused entitled to be released on bail shall deposit his passport with the Learned Judge of the Special Court concerned and if he does not hold a passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may be prescribed by the Learned Special Judge. In the latter case the Learned Special Judge will, if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three weeks. If he fails to reply within the said time, the Learned Special Judge will be entitled to act on the statement of the undertrial accused; (ii) the undertrial accused shall on being released on bail present himself at the police station which has prosecuted him at least once in a month in the case of those covered under clause (i), once in a fortnight in the case of those covered under clause (ii) and once in a week in the case of those covered by clause (iii), unless leave of absence is obtained in advance from the Special Judge concerned; (iii) the benefit of the direction in clau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verdict dated 21-3-2022, and the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in "In Re : Sanawar Ali" 2021 Crl.LJ. 403 and the verdicts of this Court in Bail Appln. 3705/2020 and Bail Appln. 4187/2020 in Ebera Nwanaforo and Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau decided on 31-5-2022. None of these judgments has been assailed by the prosecution. Only the judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Anil Kumar @ Nillu has been assailed by the State and the SLP (Crl) Diary No(s). 25615/2022 against the same has been dismissed vide order dated 14-10-2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. In view thereof in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India" (supra), the applicant who is charged with the offences punishable under NDPS Act, 1985 with the minimum imprisonment of ten years and the minimum fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and who has been in jail for more than five years, is entitled to be released on bail, and is thus, subject to terms and conditions and directives as laid down in Para 15 of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoner....