The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Alok Saxena vs The State (NCT of Delhi) consisting of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while dismissing a bail application observed that the test that Courts are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Facts
Information was received in SOS-I/Crime Branch, that a person named Alok Saxena would be supplying smack. The applicant was apprehended by the Police and the contraband i.e., smack was recovered in two packets of a total quantity of 2010 gms. Accordingly, FIR u/s 21/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”) was registered against the applicant. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence u/s 22 of the NDPS Act against the applicant and Sections 21/25 of the NDPS Act was dropped based on FSL report.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The investigation has been completed and a chargesheet has already been filed. He has been languishing in jail for 8 months and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused/applicant in jail. He has clean antecedents and has not been involved in any criminal activities of any manner in the past. The entire story of the prosecution is based on concocted facts. The result of the testing kit differs from that of the FSL report. The material allegedly recovered does not come under the purview of the Act and therefore, no offence whatsoever, under the NDPS Act is made out. Applicant has a valid licence in his favour and is authorized to sell, stock, exhibit, offer for sale, or distribute Tramadol.
Respondent: When the contraband was recovered, it was in unsealed condition, therefore, the same falls within the NDPS Act and the protection of licence is no longer available to the applicant. Applicant mixed three different substances (Tramadol, Acetylcodeine and Dextromethorphan) and mixing of such substances is neither permissible under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act nor under the NDPS Act. The quantity recovered being commercial, the bar u/s 37 of the NDPS Act was applicable.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that in case of recovery of a mocktail of contraband, the entire quantity must be considered while determining the small or commercial quantity of the Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic substances.
Relying on certain judgments regarding Section 37(b)(i) of the NDPS Act, it was observed that it is merely a manifestation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Here the Court is not required to be merely satisfied about the dual conditions i.e., prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offence while on bail, but the court must have “reasonable grounds” for such satisfaction. The meaning and scope of “reasonable grounds” will be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
It was also observed that the Court must be conscious about the mischief that is sought to be curbed by the Act and the consequences that might ensue if the person accused of the offence under the Act is released on bail. The test that Courts are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Judgment
Court was satisfied that there were no reasonable grounds for it to believe that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offence that he has been charged with. Since this court was not satisfied on this ground, there was no question to consider that the accused will not commit the offence while on bail. It was held that the conditions stipulated u/s 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied and there were no “reasonable grounds” to presume the accused as not being guilty of the offence. Hence, the instant Bail Application being devoid of any merit, was liable to be dismissed.
Case Name: Alok Saxena vs The State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 56/2022
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Decided on: 13th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
