High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in FIR dated 24.10.2020 registered under Sections 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act.
Brief Facts:
Information was received that one Ravi, Harbir and Sachin where supplying ganja in huge quantities at different places. It is stated that consequent to the secret information received, a raiding party was constituted and they reached at the Outer Ring Road Nirmal Hriday near Wazirabad Flyover, Delhi. At 5:00 P.M., a car stopped on the road going to Timarpur and two boys emerged from the said vehicle. At this juncture, it is stated that the two persons were confined by the raiding party and it was found that the person sitting at the driver’s seat was Harveer Giri and the person sitting at the back seat was one Ravi Thakur (Petitioner). Both the apprehended persons were read their rights and they recorded their refusal for getting searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Both Harveer Giri and Petitioner were searched and nothing was recovered from them. The white-coloured sack was retrieved from the car and another white-coloured heavy sack was found from the car. When these sacks were checked, total ten packets wrapped with khaki brown cello tape were found and they contained a stinky, damp green substance, which turned out to be ganja. Consequently, the instant FIR was registered under Sections 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act. The Petitioner herein was arrested on 25.10.2020 and had filed a bail application which was dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Judge vide Order dated 28.11.2020.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner herein has been falsely implicated in the instant matter and has never had anything to do with the selling of drugs. He submitted that the date of the arrest of the Petitioner has been incorrectly indicated in the official records. It was argued that the requirements as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been fulfilled by the State and that as a result, the instant case against the Petitioner stands vitiated.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the quantity of ganja that has been recovered is inordinate and that the Petitioner’s custody is necessary to uncover the well-oiled machinery of supplying of drugs. It was argued that the Petitioner has committed a serious crime of supplying drugs and that the same is a menace to society. It was submitted that the Petitioner played an important role and that the recovery of 51.154 kgs of ganja has activated the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. There is a high probability of the Petitioner committing the same crime again as well as absconding.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that the chargesheet reveals that the Petitioner had started supplying ganja at the behest of one Satender Singh who was arrested at the instance of the Petitioner. HC stated that the Petitioner cannot claim parity with Satender Singh for the simple reason that the Petitioner was apprehended at the spot with 51.154 kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. Grant or refusal of bail, in a case involving commercial quantity of contraband substances under the NDPS Act, is governed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
HC further stated that Section 37 of the NDPS Act indicates that while there is no bar as such on grant of bail, however, the same may be granted on when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence when released on bail.
HC stated that the deleterious impact of narcotic drugs on society has been elaborated by the Supreme Court time and again in various judgements. HC relied upon the case of Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, where the SC had observed how the menace of drug addiction did not only have the ability to destroy the life of just one individual, but had a debilitating impact on the lives of generations to come. The purpose of the NDPS Act was to curb this menace and deter not only consumption of such substances, but also ensure that the selling of such substances was put to end.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the instant matter is not fit for grant of bail. The huge quantity of ganja found and the fact that the Petitioner had been in constant touch with the other co-accused while hatching the plan to supply these drugs indicates that there is in existence a well-oiled machinery for the supplying and buying of these drugs. There is, therefore, an apprehension that the Petitioner may commit these offences again if granted bail.”
Case Title: Ravi Thakur v. State of NCT of Delhi
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 1941/2021
Decided on: 4th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :