Rajasthan High Court: In a bail application filed in connection with FIR registered after a search and seizer of 25.41 grams of Methylene Dioxy Methamphetamine (MDMA) from accused petitioner’s vehicle, a single-judge bench of Ganesh Ram Meena, J., denied bail application due to the lack of reasonable grounds to believe in the petitioner’s innocence and the potential risk of re-offending. The Court also emphasised on the need to adhere to statutory provisions while considering the societal impact of drug-related offenses.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the accused petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC in connection with FIR for an offence punishable under Sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The FIR was registered after a search of the accused’s Honda Amaze car, during which 25.41 grams of Methylene Dioxy Methamphetamine (MDMA) was found.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the contraband seized was for self-consumption. It was contended that there was violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as the search was conducted by a Sub Inspector, who is not authorized to conduct such a search in a private vehicle and violation of Section 43 of the NDPS Act as the search was conducted after sunset without proper procedure. The petitioner also claimed non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act due to the delay in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the Magistrate concerned.
On the other hand, the State stated that the petitioner was found with a commercial quantity of MDMA and the petitioner was arrested on the same day. It was contended that the Sub Inspector is authorized to conduct the search and seizure and there is no violation of NDPS Act. It was contended that the petitioner has five other criminal cases pending, indicating his conduct. The State cited Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, especially for commercial quantities of contraband.
Moot Point
-
Whether a person accused of possessing a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in commercial quantity can be released on bail without the court’s satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
-
Whether the non-compliance with Sections 42, 43, and 52-A of the NDPS Act can be considered at the bail stage without examining witnesses related to compliance.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the contraband found in the petitioner’s vehicle weighed 25.41 grams which is above the commercial quantity threshold. The Court stated that Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires the accused to show that they are not guilty of the offense to be granted bail, but the petitioner did not present arguments convincing enough to satisfy the court of his non-guilt. Moreover, the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband, which prima facie indicates guilt under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Court asserted that non-compliance with procedural provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Sections 42, 43, and 52A, can only be scrutinized during trial based on evidence and witness examination, not at the bail stage. The Court considered the precedents cited by the petitioner but noted that the facts of precedents were distinguished from the present case.
The Court referred to Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346, where the Supreme Court opined that “no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail” and State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122, where the Supreme Court held that “the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.”
The Court stated that while the Supreme Court has wide powers to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, but these powers are not to be exercised routinely and must align with statutory provisions. The Court held that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offense while on bail. The Court stated that in the light of material placed on record, including the charge sheet and the petitioner’s history of criminal activity, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty or unlikely to re-offend.
Considering the high incidence of drug abuse and trafficking, especially among youth, the Court highlighted the broader societal implications, adverse effects of drug abuse on society, particularly among the youth and the need to prevent further criminal activity. The Court highlighted the correlation between drug addiction and increased criminal activity and the socio-economic burden of drug abuse, including its impact on public health, crime rates, and family harmony.
“Drugs and crime cannot be considered separately, in isolation from each other, especially if they emerge from a common set of circumstances. It is a well accepted fact that drug use is a strong correlate of being booked for a criminal offence, but age is the more important correlate of criminal involvement and poverty an even more important predictor of property crime.”
The Court denied the petition for bail due to the lack of reasonable grounds to believe in the petitioner’s innocence and the potential risk of re-offending. However, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it as early as possible, in the light of the petitioner’s submissions regarding non-compliance with specific provisions of the NDPS Act.
[Shakti Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2206, Decided on 30-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora and Mr. Sahajveer Baweja, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Chandra Gupt Chopra, PP, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
