SINGLE JUDGE B. B. LANDE, applicant in a criminal bail application in connection with a case under the NDPS Act, was denied bail. The court held that given the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act and the allegations, it was not appropriate to release him at this stage.
None. Bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2-BA-661-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.661 OF 2013
BABUSHA B. LANDE
)...APPLICANT
V/s.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS
Mr.Ayaz Khan and Mr.Dilip Mishra Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.Francis Saldhana Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Mrs.R.V.Newton APP for the State.
CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 18th JUNE, 2013.
P.C. :
1 Heard Mr.Ayaz Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr.Francis Saldhana, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. With their assistance, I have gone through the bail application and the annexures thereto.
2 The case of the investigation agency is that the accused no.1 – Riyaz – was apprehended in connection with seizure of 84.430 kgs of Ketamine, on 27.8.2012. In the course of investigation into the said case, Riyaz disclosed certain information pursuant to which 25.3 Kgs. of Ketamine was recovered from the godown of Archana Roadlines Corporation, which is being run by the present applicant.
avk 1/3
2-BA-661-2013
3 The main contention advanced by Mr.Ayaz Khan is that there is no material to show that the applicant was aware of the fact that what was kept by the accused no.1 in the godown was a psychotropic substance, and according to him, it was clear from the statements recorded during investigation under the provisions of Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), that the co-accused Riyaz was known to the father of the applicant and had been keeping his goods in the godown of the applicant from time to time.
4 I have carefully considered the matter. It appears that Riyaz was earlier arrested in connection with a case under the NDPS Act by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). It appears that in that case, certain contraband was seized at the instance of the DRI from the godown situate near the godown of Archana Roadlines Corporation. It appears that the applicant was aware of the fact that Riyaz had been apprehended earlier in connection with the case under the NDPS Act, and that, certain contraband was seized at his instance from the godown situated by the side of the godown of Archana Roadlines Corporation.
5 Considering this and the presumption contained in Section 35 of the NDPS Act, it is difficult to hold at this stage, that the applicant in all probability, was not aware of the fact that what was kept by Riyaz in the godown, was a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. This aspect would be clear only by the evidence, as may be adduced during
avk 2/3
2-BA-661-2013
the trial. The applicant can very well take such a defence during the trial, which would be properly adjudicated by the trial court on consideration of the evidence as may be adduced.
6 Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
7 The application is rejected.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
avk 3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant absent evidence proving his awareness of the stored narcotic substance.
Whether the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act prevents release on bail at this stage.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
BABUSHA B. LANDE
UNION OF INDIA
ABHAY M. THIPSAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
