The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice B. V. Nagarathna in the case titled Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan gives their opinion on whether no contraband was recovered from the accused would entitle him to bail.

Facts of the Case:

This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad for alleged offences under Sections 8, 21, 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. The High Court has allowed an application for bail.

Submission of the Respondent:

The Respondent has submitted that the contraband was found concealed in the vehicle in which the respondent was travelling. Thus, it cannot be stated that it was the respondent who was in conscious possession of the contraband. The Respondent has also submitted that the respondent is neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle and in this backdrop, the order of the High Court enlarging him on bail cannot be faulted. The respondent has also submitted that due to non-compliance of the procedural requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the respondent should be granted bail.

Court’s observation and Judgment:

The Supreme Court has held

"The following circumstances are crucial to assessing whether the High Court has correctly evaluated the application for bail, having regard to the provisions of Section 37:
(i) The respondent was travelling in the vehicle all the way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh with the co-accused;
(ii) The complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent indicates that the respondent was in regular touch with the other accused persons who were known to him;
(iii) The quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a commercial quantity; and
(iv) The contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which the respondent was travelling with the co-accused.
The impugned order of the High Court, apart from observing that no contraband was found from the personal search of the respondent has ignored the above circumstances.
The High Court has clearly overlooked crucial requirements and glossed over the circumstances which were material to the issue as to whether a case for the grant of bail was established. In failing to do so, the order of the High Court becomes unsustainable. Moreover, it has emerged, during the course of the hearing that after the respondent was enlarged on bail he has consistently remained away from the criminal trial resulting in the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him. The High Court ought to have given due weight to the seriousness and gravity of the crime which it has failed to do."

The Top Court thus set aside the impugned order of the High Court.

Read Judgemen Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source : https://pixnio.com/free-images/science/medical-science/drug-paraphernalia-were-a-number-of-red-oblong-tablets-rows-or-lines-725x483.jpg