While rejecting the bail application of an accused under the NDPS Act, Justice Satyen Vaidya noticed how all the accused were in the age group of 23 to 27 years and that even adolescents have not been spared. Further, he also noted that the issue of drugs is not just a law-and-order problem, but it has now become a serious social issue.
Brief Facts:
This petition has been filed for the grant of pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 24 of 2023, dated 08.02.2023 under Sections 21, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
In the case, the police had apprehended a car near place Barmana in District Bilaspur, H.P. Three people were occupants of the car. On suspicion the car was searched in presence of an independent witness and 15.13 grams of heroin was recovered from the vehicle. On investigation it was found that the occupants of the car had recovered the contraband from the petitioner after paying Rs. 40,000/- and accordingly the petitioner was named as a co-accused.
The petitioner has prayed for a grant of pre-arrest bail on the ground that he is innocent as he is not connected with the crime in question and his implication in the present case is false.
The respondent-state has vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has a long-standing criminal background. He has been previously involved in 38 criminal cases, including five under NDPS Act. Further, it has been contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as certain recoveries are to be affected by him.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that as per the status report filed on behalf of the respondent state, it reveals that the investigating agency has been able to lay hands on some material, which prima-facie establishes a link between the occupants of the car who were apprehended with heroin and the petitioner. It was then noted that all the accused persons apprehended in the car are in the age group of 23 to 27 years, and the court mentioned that the problem of drugs besides being a law and order problem has become more of a serious social issue. It was also mentioned that such serious invasion in the social structure needs to be curbed with heavy hands for such purposes, the police need to have proper access to the accused, and custodial interrogation is the way to it.
Then it was concluded that there is a prima-facie material on record that suggests some link between the petitioner and other co-accused. They are not relatives and there is a huge age gap between the co-accused and the petitioner, and this link has to be probed. In such a view of the matter, the court noted that it cannot be said that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be unjustified.
The Decision of the Court:
The court did not find any merit in the petition and the same was rejected.
Case Title: Anil Kumar v. State of H.P.
Coram: Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case No.: Cr.MP(M) No. 366 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. I. N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://pixnio.com/free-images/science/medical-science/drug-paraphernalia-were-a-number-of-red-oblong-tablets-rows-or-lines-725x483.jpg
