Delhi HC Declines Bail To Accused Under NDPS Act

The Delhi High Court, on July 26, declined regular bail to a person accused under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS).

Section 20 of the NDPS pertains to punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.

The accused had filed a regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

The accused was apprehended on the road by a police party. Doubting the presence of the said person, who was none other than the applicant, they proceeded towards him, but the applicant threw his bag and began running away. The police team managed to apprehend him.

Thereafter, when the passersby refused to join the raid, they opened the plastic bag and noticed some material which as per colour and smell was suspected to be Ganja and it was weighted and found to be 21 Kgs. Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was served and Officer was informed and the accused produced before the ACP and other proceedings commenced and the accused was sent to judicial custody.

Contentions

Advocate Rahul Sharma appeared for the applicant and submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated. It was also urged that Section 57 of NDPS Act had not been complied with and, on that basis alone, the applicant was entitled to bail. It was submitted that there was nothing to show from where the weighing machine had been obtained. It was further argued that the absence of independent witness to the alleged recovery also cast suspicion on the alleged recovery. Moreover, in the intimation under Section 57 of NDPS Act, the name “Herry” was mentioned and there is no clue as to who this “Herry” mentioned in the information was.

Section 50 of NDPS Act pertains to the procedure which has to be followed while searching a person under the Act.

Rajesh Mahajan, additional standing counsel, appeared for the state and argued that compliance under Section 50 of NDPS Act was not required in the facts of the present case and, all other claims were to be determined during trial. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act had to be applied, as 21 Kgs. Ganja that had been recovered was of a commercial quantity. “Herry” was only a typographical error and this was a case of chance recovery by a patrolling party. It was, thus, submitted that the bail application be dismissed.

Decision

Justice Asha Menon observed that, “Section 37 of the NDPS Act limits the grant of bail when a person has been apprehended with commercial quantity of prohibited Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances.”

“…the charge has already been framed against the applicant. In other words, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant has committed the offence and the applicant has not been able to convince the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence,” the Court observed.

With regard to the argument of non-compliance of Section 50, the Court said, “Section 50 of NDPS Act would not be applicable in the present case, as the recovery was not from the person of the applicant.”

The bail application was accordingly dismissed.