TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NADU [ 2013 (10) TMI 361 - SUPREME COURT ] is not admissible in evidence. In view thereof in terms of the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE REPRESENTING UNDERTRIAL PRISONRE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 1994 (10) TMI 290 - SUPREME COURT ], the applicant who is charged with the offences punishable under NDPS Act, 1985 with the minimum imprisonment of ten years and the minimum fine of Rs. 1 Lakh and who has been in jail for more than five years, is entitled to be released on bail, and is thus, subject to terms and conditions imposed - bail application allowed. - Bail Appln. No. 891 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2022 - Anu Malhotra, J. Shri Y.R. Saxena, Priya Saxena and Swarandeep Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing Counsel with Gagan Vaswani, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The applicant, vide the present application seeks the grant of regular bail in case titled DRI v. Tasawwur Hussain @ Tasawwur Ors. SC No. 7550/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 22, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 submitting to the effect that he is incarcerated f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution of India. 7. The respondent i.e., the DRI, vide its reply dated 31-5-2022 has submitted that a specific intelligence was received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai, that a truck bearing registration No. HR 55 P 7995 carrying contraband substances covered under the NDPS Act, 1985 would enter Delhi from the National Highway 8 via Gurgaon Toll Plaza on the night of 20-2-2015 and 21-2-2015, and that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, B-3 4, 6th Floor, Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi intercepted the said truck near the Pochanpur village, Dwarka, New Delhi, which was brought to office of the DRI, DZU, and after examination, was found containing 500 kgs. of contraband, which was later on seized and confirmed as mephedrone, and at the time of interception, the truck was occupied by three persons, one of them being the applicant herein. 8. The DRI further submitted through its reply that Hakmuddin and the applicant were arrested and sent to judicial custody, and in a follow-up action carried out at Solapur, Maharashtra, over 5000 kgs.-ltrs. mephedrone were seized, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated under section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act. Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2004, decided on 11-3-2004 [2004 (166) E.L.T. 302 (S.C.) = 2004 taxmann.com 1237 (SC)], with observations therein to the effect :- In the case in hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under section 67 of the Act... In the aforesaid background, this does not appear to be a case, where it would be reasonably believed that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence. Therefore, the grant of bail to the accused was not called for . UOI v. Mahaboob Alam - 2004 (1) JCC 614 (SC), with observations therein to the effect :- Following the above dangerous trend arising out of narcotics trade, this Court in the said case held though the Court has the power of granting bail in spite of the language of Section 32A that the same should be done only and strictly subject to the conditions spelt out in Section 37 of the Act Babua alias Tazmul Hossain - 2001 SCC (Crl) 351, with ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... world. The legislature has thought fit to prescribe very deterrent punishment for such offences. The offences which have such delirious effect on the health of the people are always to be dealt with a heavy hand and a person committing such offences normally does not deserve to be released on bail . State of M.P. v. Kajad - (2001) 7 SCC 673, with observations therein to the effect :- A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the court that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (l) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount. (ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for like amount. (iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount. (iv) Where an undertrial accused is charged for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 31 and 31A of the Act, such an undertrial shall not be entitled to be released on bail by virtue of this order. The directives in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall be subject to the following general conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as provided in Section 309 of the Code. 14. The applicant as observed elsewhere hereinabove is incarcerated since 21-2-2015 and more than a period of five years in terms of the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India (supra) has elapsed. 15. The alleged disclosure statement made by the applicant in terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, in terms of the verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu - (2021) 4 SCC 1 = 2018 (363) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and of this Court in Ebera Nwanaforo and Frank Vitus v. NCB in Bail Appl. 3705/2020 and Bail Appln. 4187/2020, dated 31-5-2022, is not admissible in evidence. 16. The verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India (supra) has been adhered to by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Atul Aggarwal v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - (2021) SCC OnLine Del 5489, Anil Kumar @ Nillu v. State in Bail Appln. 1724/2021, a verdict dated 21-3-2022, and the verdict of the Hon ble High Court of Calcutta in In Re : Sanawar Ali 2021 Crl.LJ. 403 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
