This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. involving offences under the NDPS Act. The accused was arrested for supplying buprenorphine injections. The High Court rejected the bail prayer as the commercial quantity attracted the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act.
bail application rejected; applicant not released on bail.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5433 of 2023
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
| ---------------------------- For Applicant |
------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Adv. |
|---|---|
| For State |
: Mr. Arjit Tiwari, PL. |
| ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Hon'bl | e Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board |
15.09.2023
This second application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been filed by the accused/applicant who has been arrested on 08.05.2023 in connection with Crime No.339/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur for the offence under Sections 21, 22 & 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. As per prosecution story, acting upon a secret information, police has seized 31 numbers of Buprenorphine Injection IP Uprine containing total 62 ML from the possession of co-accused Jogni Kurre and Manisha Tondon and from their memorandum it was revealed that they are the mother and neighbour of the present applicant and present applicant has supplied the aforesaid intoxicated injections to them. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, he has been arrested.
It is relevant to mention here that earlier application filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.06.2023 passed in MCRC No.4337/2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
2
innocent and has been roped in a false case. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to establish that the said contraband was seized exclusively from the possession of the present applicant as the same was seized from the possession of the co-accused. He also submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.05.2023 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time. Therefore, he may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposes the prayer for bail submits that present applicant is mastermind in the alleged crime who has supplied the commercial quantity of injections to the co-accused in illegal manner. Therefore, rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts in the case. In support his contention, learned State counsel places reliance in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh1 , wherein the law relating to exercise of bail application in the offences under the NDPS Act has been dealt and the following was observed at para-18:-
18 . This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429 , 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522, it has been elaborated as under:
“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)
1 (2020) 12 SCC 122
3
(1990) 1 SCC 95 , 1990 SCC (Cri) 65 as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24)
‘24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.’
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail
are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.”
In view of the aforesaid, learned State counsel prays to reject the bail application of the applicant.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering that from the behest of the present applicant commercial quantity of contraband has been seized which attracts the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
6. Accordingly, the application is rejected .
4
7 . However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Ajay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the commercial quantity of contraband seized attracts Section 37 NDPS Act?
Whether the court should release the accused involved in NDPS offences on bail considering mandatory minimum imprisonment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala Vs. RajeshExplained¶16
State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh
Union of India v. Ram SamujhExplained¶18
Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429 · Who else cites this
Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa)Explained¶18
Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Akshay Kurre
State Of Chhattisgarh
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
