TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1 Lakh and the bar of Section 37 is not attracted in the present case as the substance recovered is a controlled substance within the meaning of Section 2 (viid) of the Act. Whether the petitioner/accused who is a foreign national is entitled to be released on bail, if she is able to make out a case in her favour? - HELD THAT:- There is no bar for releasing foreign national on bail, if the case so warrants. The bar of section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, the petitioner/accused who is in J.C. since 13.07.2019 is admitted to bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each of the like amount subject to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner is in custody since her date of arrest on 13.07.2019 and the charges have already been framed and the long incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is also submitted that the alleged recovered substance i.e. Pseudo-Ephedrine is a controlled substance and the bar under section 37 of the NDPS Act which provides for bar for granting bail will not be attracted in the present case as the same is applicable only in offences involving commercial quantity which refers to only narcotic drug and psychotropic substance and the substance alleged to be recovered from the petitioner is neither a narcotic drug nor psychotropic substance and is a controlled substance under the NDPS Act. He further submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Online Del 4608. G. M. Akbar Ali V. The Intelligence Officer Crl. O.P. No. 26320 of 2010 Decided on 19.11.2010. Rafael Palafox Garcia v The Union of India and Anr. Criminal Application no. 2015/2008. Lambert Kroger vs. State 2000 SCC Online Del 208. Sartori Livio vs. State 2005 (80) DRJ 482. Nasimjon Komlov v. Customs CRLM(M) No. 2038/2000 Decided on dated 31.07.2000. 6. On the other side, while opposing the bail of the petitioner, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submitted that during her voluntary statement the accused was within her knowledge and had deposed under section 67, NDPS Act and admitted that the said drugs which were recovered from her possession was given to her by IKE which had to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its possible use in the production manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or to the provisions of any international Convention, by notification be a controlled in the official Gazette, declare substance. The Ministry to of Finance Department of Revenue vide its notification dated 28th December, 1999 has declared pseudo-ephedrine a controlled substance under the Act. The Central Government being of the opinion that having regard to the use of the controlled substances in the production or manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, in exercise of powers conferred by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. It was further held that deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society, specified in the Constitution. 12. Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused has also relied upon Sartori Livio vs. State 2005 (80) DRJ 482 in which it has been held as follows : It would be a shame if courts are going to keep persons incarcerated merely because they are of foreign origin even though prima facie no case is made out against them. This would be a negation of the valued principles of rule of law and violative of the constitutional mandate and principles of human rights. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the sections involved were sections 8, 9A, 25A, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act which is not so in the present case. 17. As already observed hereinabove, bar of section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, the petitioner/accused who is in J.C. since 13.07.2019 is admitted to bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Being released on bail, the petitioner shall inform the NCB Office, the address at which she will reside during the period she is on bail. Any change in the address shall also be communicated to the NCB Office within 2 days. The petitioner sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
