NDPS Act offences in vogue these days; courts to be mindful while granting bail: Delhi High Court

While dismissing a bail application in a drugs case, the Delhi High Court recently held that courts need to be conscious of the legislative intent behind passing the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, when granting bail in such matters [Vikas Kumar v State]..Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the offences prescribed under the Act are not only a menace to a particular individual, but to the entire society, especially the youth of the country. The judgment reads,"Such offences have a cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a big chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years. Therefore, in order to prevent the devastating impact on the people of the nation, Parliament in its wisdom deemed it fit to introduce stringent conditions for grant of bail under the Act. The Court has to stay mindful of the legislative intent and mandate of the Act while granting bail in such matters.".The Court was hearing a case in which the bail applicant was found to be in possession of poppy husk, and was accused of being a supplier. The police received information about the location of the godown where it was stored, and on raiding the same, found 975.5 kilograms of poppy straw in the applicant's possession.He was declared a proclaimed offender in the present case on June 7, 2019. Subsequently, on March 20, 2021, he surrendered in court and was arrested. A Special NDPS Judge had framed various charges under NDPS Act against the applicant for contraband in poppy straw, abetment and criminal conspiracy. He subsequently moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail..Before the High Court, counsel for petitioner argued that the applicant has no connection with the alleged offence, and that there is no incriminating evidence on record against him except the disclosure statements of two co-accused, and the statement of the owner of the house from where the recovery was made.He argued that one of the co-accused from whom recovery was made has already been granted regular bail. It was submitted that the applicant is stated to be a tenant in the house where recovery was made, but there are no supporting documents to prove the same.Lastly, he said that since the investigation has been completed and chargesheet was filed, no purpose will be served by keeping the applicant behind bars..Additional Public prosecutor contended that the statements of the co-accused led to the recovery of the large quantity of the contraband from the premises of the applicant, therefore they are admissible.Further, the other co-accused persons were not found with large quantities of the drug..The High Court noted that as per Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act, bail for offences involving commercial quantity could not be granted unless the twin conditions prescribed under the Section have been met. The conditions include: a. Hearing the Public Prosecutor; and b. Satisfaction of the Court based on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is likely to not commit an offence of a similar nature.It further explained that the expression 'reasonable grounds' is not capable of any rigid definition, but its meaning and scope will be determined based on the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case..It went on to note that courts must be conscious about the mischief that is sought to be curbed by the Act and the consequences that might ensue if an accused is released on bail. What needs to be ascertained is that the person so released will not commit an offence while being on bail. The judgment reads,"Both the conditions are interlinked because the Parliament in its wisdom, intends that in cases where there is a possibility of commission of this grave offence under the Act, the person need not be released. It is so because if the person is released, he is most likely to repeat the offence, thus impacting the society at large. Thus, to not give any leeway to the accused, the Court must be satisfied about the dual conditions on reasonable grounds.".In the present case, keeping in view the large commercial quantity of contraband that was recovered from the premises of the applicant, the gravity of the allegations levelled as well as the serious objections raised by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the Court did not find any merit in the application..The applicant was represented by Advocate Manish Kumar Chaudhary whereas the State was represented by APP Kusum Dhalla..[Read judgment]