Delhi High Court
Mike Anthony (In Jc) vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 1 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.04.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024
MIKE ANTHONY (IN JC) .....Applicant
versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant : Mr. Vikram Hegde, Mr.Chitwan Sharma &
Mr.Harsh Jain, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Khatri, Sr.Standing Counsel with
Ms. Shelly Dixit, Ms. Shreya Lamba, Ms.
Anoshuka, Mr. Sahil &Mr. Akshay,
Advocates
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present bail application is filed seeking regular bail in Case
No. VIII/23/DZU/2023, registered for offences under Sections 8 (c),
22(c), 23(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act‘).
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1. On 24.05.2023, on the basis of secret information, a parcel
bearing no. AWBZ16279354 was intercepted at DTDC Express Pvt.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 1 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
Ltd., Village Samalkha, New Delhi. The said parcel was checked in
the presence of independent witnesses and 9 LSD Blots (0.15 g) were
recovered from the same.
2.2. On the same day, details of the parcel were enquired from
DTDC, and in reply to the same, DTDC informed about the email
received from the receiver of the parcel. The parcel was destined for
the applicant at his address in South Goa.
2.3. On the basis of the collected evidence, a team of NCB
intercepted the applicant at the DTDC Office, Margao. During
preliminary investigation, the applicant stated that he had come to
collect the parcel in question. The applicant also showed his wicker
me chat with the sender of the parcel with the profile name-
‘saulbadman007’ and the email that was sent to DTDC.
2.4. Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was served to the
applicant where he disclosed that he was using the wicker me app with
the user name ‘blotterson’. He stated that the payment for the order
was made through cryptocurrency and the sender had informed him
that he had sent 09 LSD Blots through the parcel. The applicant was
arrested on 26.05.2023 and is in custody since then.
2.5. During investigation, it was found that the concerned parcel was
booked by co-accused Gajender Singh with his associate Shainu, who
used the wicker me profile ‘Saulbadman007’. It was found that the
aforesaid persons were in NCB in relation with their Delhi Zonal Unit
Case VIII/24/DZU/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 2 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present
case.
4. He submitted that the application under Section 52A of the
NDPS Act was filed on 04.08.2023, that is, after more than a delay of
73 days and the samples were thereafter sent to CFSL Laboratory after
more than 72 hours. He submitted that the same creates a doubt on the
credibility of the prosecution.
5. He further submitted that the weight of the contraband
recovered from the applicant came out to be 0.15 g, however, in the
absence of any quantitative determination of LSD in the said paper
blots, it cannot be ascertained as to what is the quantity of LSD
recovered from the applicant. He submitted that in such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the recovery was of commercial
quantity.
6. He submitted that the blotter paper is a carrier and its weight is
to be excluded. He submitted that LSD is a crystal which is mixed
with alcohol and then dropped on paper. He submitted that while the
weight of alcohol can be included, however, the weight of paper
cannot be included. He submitted that if the weight of blotter paper is
included, there could be no recovery of small quantity, which is,
0.002g. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala in the case of Jagath Ram Joy : Bail Application No.
2530/2022 where it was held that the weight of blotting paper is to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 3 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
excluded while determining whether the recovered blots contain
commercial quantity.
7. He submitted that there is nothing on record except the
disclosure statements of the accused persons to attribute the username
‘blotterson’ to the applicant. He submitted that the disclosure
statements are not admissible as evidence and they cannot be used to
deny bail to the applicant.He further submitted that even otherwise,
wickr me chats and the email to DTDC are all part of phone data
which is a matter of trial.
8. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India : (2021) 20 SCC 50
where it was held that printouts of WhatsApp chats, in absence of
corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as sufficient material to
establish a live link.
9. He submitted that the applicant was arrested on 25.05.2023. He
submitted that there are fifteen witnesses and the trial is likely to take
long.
10. Per contra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and
submitted that the present case involves recovery of commercial
quantity of contraband and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are attracted against the applicant.
11. He submitted that the combined weight of the blotter paper,
which is a neutral substance, and LSD is relevant to determine
whether the quantity is small or commercial. He relied upon the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 4 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
judgments in the cases of NCB v. Anuj Keshwani : Criminal WP No.
2077/2021 (Bombay High Court), Nihaal. S v. State by Inspector of
Customs : Criminal Petition No. 8285/2022 (Karnataka High Court),
Rajesh Ravindran v. Union of India : AIRONLINE 2021 Kar 1832
(Karnataka High Court) and HS Arun v. State of Goa : 2022 SCC
OnLine Bom 4696 (Bombay High Court) in this regard.
12. He submitted that the applicant is actively involved in the
commission of the offence and he was apprehended when he had
come to retrieve the parcel at DTDC Goa. He further submitted that
the applicant had inquired about the status of the concerned parcel
from DTDC by email.
13. He further submitted that Wicker Me chats between the
applicant and co-accused Shainu have been recovered from his mobile
phone where the details regarding booking the parcel, payment chats
and parcel AWB number have been discussed.
14. He submitted that the charge has been conceded on behalf of the
applicant, however, the matter has not proceeded as arguments on
charge are pending qua another co-accused.
ANALYSIS
15. It is settled law that the Court, while considering the application
for grant of bail, has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether
there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused has committed the offence; circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; the nature and
gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 5 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released
on bail; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being threatened;
etc. At the same time, the period of incarceration is also a relevant
factor that is to be considered.
16. It is unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the
accused charged with offence under the NDPS Act must fulfil the
conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Section 37 of the
NDPS Act reads as under:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.–(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)–
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences
under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also
for offences involving commercial quantity shall be
released on bail or on his own bond unless–
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity
to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the
time being in force, on granting of bail.”
17. In the present case, it is essentially argued that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is a
delay in preferring the application under Section 52A of the NDPS
Act and that the weight of the blotter paper cannot be included while
determining the recovered quantity.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 6 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control
Bureau v. Kashif : 2024 INSC 1045 has held that delayed compliance
or non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS
Act cannot be treated as an illegality which would entitle the accused
to bail or vitiate the trial on the said ground alone. It was held that the
Court would need to consider all circumstances to find out whether
any serious prejudice is caused to the accused. This Court had
followed the said view in Sovraj v. State :2024:DHC:5009. Evidently,
there is a delay of about 73 days in compliance of the procedure under
Section 52A of the NDPS Act. It is open to the applicant to press the
aforesaid defence and show prejudice at the time of trial. However, at
this stage, the applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case as to
how he has been prejudiced by the delayed compliance. In the opinion
of this Court, at this stage, any observation as to the veracity of the
recovery on account of delay will be premature.
19. Insofar as the inclusion of weight of blotter paper in the
recovered quantity, it is argued by the learned counsel for the
applicant that if the weight of the paper is not counted, the recovered
quantity would at least be intermediate in nature. It is argued that if the
weight of paper is included, then recovery of even a single LSD blot
would fall in the ambit of intermediate quantity and there will be no
small quantity.
20. The NDPS Act provides for a tiered sentencing mechanism
wherein drug traffickers and peddlers dealing in significant quantities
of drugs are dealt with a different hand than addicts and individuals
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 7 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
who use the drugs for personal use. The object of stipulation of small
quantity will be frustrated if even addicts and personal users are
treated the same as traffickers.
21. On being pointedly asked, the learned SSC for NCB has not
been able to point out any medium in which LSD, if recovered, would
be categorised as small quantity. He, however, has referred to certain
judgments where it has been held that the blotter paper weight is to be
included in recovered quantity.
22. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the
case of H.S. Arun Kumar v. State of Goa:2022 SCC OnLine Bom
4696, while placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Hira
Singh v. Union of India:(2020) 20 SCC 272, has held that the weight
of the blotter paper is to be included while calculating the weight of
the contraband. The Division Bench also referred to a catena of
precedents from the United States of America as well as Australia to
observe that the blotter paper is made of material that is edible and is
an integral part of the mixture as the same is ingested with LSD. It
was further observed that the objective of the NDPS Act seems to be
to include not just the pure drug but also the blotter to quantify the
quantity of the recovered substance. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“52. On this factual aspect, even Hira Singh (supra), in paragraph
10.3, records that illicit drugs are seldom sold in pure form….
53. The Supreme Court noted that, therefore, what is harmful or
injurious is the entire mixture/tablets with neutral substances and
Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. Therefore, going
only by the weight of the pure drug or psychotropic substanceSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 8 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
would frustrate the intention and purpose of enacting the NDPS
Act. There may be few punishments for “commercial quantity”.
Indeed, that would not have been the intention of the Legislature.
54. The Supreme Court noted that even considering the definition
of “manufacture”, “manufactured drug”, and the “preparation”
conjointly, the total weight of such “manufactured drug” or
“preparation”, including the neutral material, is required to be
considered while determining the small quantity or commercial
quantity. Only such an interpretation would achieve the objectives
and purpose of the NDPS Act. Any other interpretation to defeat
the object and purpose of enactment of the NDPS Act as a
deterrent.
55. Thus, both Nationally as well as Internationally, there
appears to be a common ground as to the mode or how L.S.D. is
usually dealt with in the market or on the streets or the mode or
manner in which L.S.D. is consumed by impregnating it into a
blotter and after that, at least in most cases, ingesting L.S.D.
along with the blotter….
xxx
57. Therefore, the swallowing or chewing of the blotter cannot
become a significant distinguishing factor. Besides, the extreme
instances or examples raised in the abstract cannot govern
statutory interpretation in all cases. Nevertheless, the review of
precedents, Nationally and internationally, establish that the
combined weight of the blotter and the L.S.D. is crucial to the
quantification upon which the punishment depends.
xxx
59. Section 2(xxiii) defines “psychotropic substance” means any
substance, namely natural or synthetic or any natural material or
any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in
the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule. Thus,
a psychotropic substance includes a preparation thereof.
Alternatively, the preparation of psychotropic substances is also
covered under the definition of psychotropic substance.
xxx
64. There is an express indication in the NDPS Act about taking
into account the entire quantity of the drug or the psychotropic
substance seized in a case for determining the quantum of
punishment and not just the pure drug content alone…
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 9 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
65. The statutory provisions and the scheme of the NDPS Act
referred to above clearly provide, in more places than one, that the
weight of the entire mixture and not just its pure drug content must
be taken into account for determining whether the quantity is
small, intermediate quantity or a commercial quantity. Moreover,
the statement of object and reasons for introducing the
amendment to the NDPS Act in 2014 explicitly clarifies the
legislative intent to take the entire quantity of drug seized in a
case for determining the quantum of punishment and not just the
pure drug content.
66. ….Ultimately, E. Michael Raj (supra) was overruled by Hira
Singh (supra). Hira Singh (supra) held that the legal position
before E. Michael Raj (supra) that the entire quantity of the drug
seized would be relevant to determine the quantum of punishment
and not just the pure drug content. Thus, considering the
legislative intervention after E. Michael Raj (supra) and the
judicial overruling of E. Michael Raj (supra) by Hira Singh
(supra), any argument that only the weight of pure L.S.D. is
relevant to determining the quantum of punishment, would not
not sustain.
67. In the context of the definition of “preparation” in Section
2(xx), the expression “mixture, in whatever physical state” cannot
be ignored. This expression would include a mixture of L.S.D.
and blotter. Ultimately, there is no dispute that the L.S.D. dissolved
in a solution like alcohol is dropped on the blotter. The mixture of
L.S.D. on the blotter is then ingested. Therefore, the expression “in
whatever physical state” cannot be ignored or rendered
meaningless or redundant. The fact that the Legislature chose to
use this expression expressly will have to be respected and given
some meaning.
68. Similar is the position of the statutory provisions referred to
above or the statutory Notification issued under the NDPS Act. The
suitable meaning having regard to the context, will have to be
assigned to expressions like “mixture or substance” and
“containing one or more such drugs or substances”. The
expression “one or more” cannot be read or construed as “two or
more”. In the statutory Notification dated 19.10.2001, the
expression in Entry 239 of the Table concerning “any mixture or
preparation that of with or without a neutral material” must be
considered and respected. Similarly, in note 4, a reference to
“entire mixture” and “not just its pure drug content” must be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 10 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
considered and respected. If the interpretation or construction
suggested by the learned Counsel for the accused persons is
accepted, most of these expressions used by the Legislature or the
Executive in the statutory Notification would be rendered otiose
or meaningless.
xxx
74. The precedents on the subject also overwhelmingly support
the inclusion of the weight of the blotter and not just the weight
of the pure L.S.D….
xxx
86. Most decisions or the material referred to also speak about
the blotter being made up of extra absorbent material, including
ingredients like rice, cotton, and flax seeds. Such blotters absorb
L.S.D. in their tiny perforations, separable only on dipping it into
a liquid or placing it on the tongue. The blotter becomes an
integral part of the mixture of the L.S.D.-impregnated blotter.
Moreover, blotters made up of rice, flax seeds etc., are
consumable. They qualify as neutral substances in ordinary
parlance, just as chalk or talcum powder would, in the context of
the drugs with which they are mixed. The ruling in Hira Singh
(supra) is quite clear on the status of such neutral substances.
The NDPS Act also refers to psychotropic substances, including
preparations of one or more psychotropic substances.
Preparation includes a mixture in whatever state.
87. Thus, the text, precedents and the literature on the market or
street practices in which L.S.D. is stored, transported, concealed,
sold, purchased, consumed or otherwise dealt with support the
discussion and construction in Anuj Keshwani (supra).
xxx
94. Note 4 below Notification dated 19.10.2001 as introduced by
Notification dated 18.11.2009 very clearly provides that quantities
shown in Columns 5 & 6 of the Table relating to the respective
drugs shown in Column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any
solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers,
esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts or esters,
ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is
possible and not just its pure drug content.
95. Thus, this Note clearly expresses that the weight of the entire
mixture is relevant, not just the pure drug content in such
mixture. The Legislature is presumed to be aware of the market
or street conditions in which psychotropic substance like L.S.D. is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 11 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
dealt with on the streets and in the markets. The accused persons
have not challenged any provisions of the NDPS Act or Note 4
below the Notification dated 19.10.2001. In any case, the validity
of these provisions has already been upheld in Hira Singh
(supra). Therefore, any reference to this Note could not have
been avoided by opining that L.S.D. drops on a blotter do not
constitute a mixture or that a blotter is not a neutral substance.
96. Incidentally, Hira Singh (supra), in paragraph 11, holds that
Note 4 below Notification dated 19.10.2001 was clarificatory and
added by way of abundant caution only. Even absent the Note, the
Court concluded that while determining the small or commercial
quantity in relation to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
in a mixture with one or more neutral substance(s), it includes
the weight of the neutral substance(s) also and not only the
actual content by weight of the offending drug has to be taken
into account. The Court held that theretofore even if Note 4, which
was added by Notification dated 18.11.2009, were not to be added,
the legal position would favour taking into consideration the
combined weight of the offending drug and the neutral substance
with which it is mixed.
97. Thus, according to us, Hira Singh (supra) is a complete answer
to most of the contentions raised by Mr. Merchant, Ms. Collasso
and Mr. Poulekar on behalf of the accused persons. Based upon
Hira Singh (supra), therefore, their contentions cannot be accepted
by us.
xxx
99. In fact, the Statutory scheme and provisions of the NDPS Act
are pretty clear and clearly reflect the legislative intent on the
subject. They are comparable, at least when it comes to the
essentials. There is no doubt, however, that the precedents from the
United States or Australia do not bind the Courts in India…such
precedents are certainly not irrelevant. Even though they may not
be binding, they have a persuasive value.
xxx
115. In conclusion, therefore, we endorse the view taken in Anuj
Keshwani (supra) that the combined weight of the L.S.D. and the
blotter is relevant to determine small or commercial quantities
and not the view in Hitesh Malhotra (supra) and Harsh Meshram
(supra) that only the weight of the pure L.S.D. is the
determinative factor. The reference is answered accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 12 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
23. The said view has been subsequently followed by a number of
different Courts as well. There is prima facie merit in the argument in
relation to the objective of small quantity and that if such
interpretation is accepted, then under no circumstances, LSD would be
found in small quantity thereby making the classification provided in
the NDPS Act nugatory since even a single Blot, which would
necessarily be for a personal or one time use, would not be treated as
small quantity. However, this Court does not consider it apposite to
comment on the same at this stage considering the ambit of the present
proceedings, especially given the view taken by the Hon’ble Division
Bench and the stage of the trial. The Court at present is not discussing
the interpretation of the small quantity so stipulated and is seized with
merely the question of bail.
24. It cannot be ignored that the present case is one where the
applicant was arrested on 26.05.2023, despite which, the charges have
not yet been framed. Fifteen witnesses have been listed by the
prosecution. In such circumstances, speedy trial does not seem to be a
possibility. The applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of
trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable
time.
25. It is trite law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and
long period of incarceration cannot be said to be fettered by the
embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 13 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
in the case of Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) :2023 SCC
OnLine SC 352 has observed as under:
“21….Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be
said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of
Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS
Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these
factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the
appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in
time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than
not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response
to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded
that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were
lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the
country20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were
undertrials.
23. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk
of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High Court in A
Convict Prisoner v. State21 as “a radical transformation” whereby
the prisoner:
“loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses
personal possessions. He has no personal relationships.
Psychological problems result from loss of freedom,
status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life.
The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The
prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-
perception changes.”
24. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as
crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the
crime, more honour is paid to the criminal”22 (also see Donald
Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ published in 194023).
Incarceration has further deleterious effects – where the accused
belongs to the weakest economic strata : immediate loss of
livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 14 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the
event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and
ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact
stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Man Mandal & Anr. v.
The State of West Bengal : SLP(CRL.) No. 8656/2023 had granted
bail to the petitioner therein, in an FIR for offences under the NDPS
Act, on the ground that the accused had been incarcerated for a period
of almost two years and the trial was likely going to take considerable
amount of time.
27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha :
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109, while granting bail to the petitioner
therein held as under :
“4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly
heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the
2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the
same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent
more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged
incarceration, generally militates against the most precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must
override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
of the NDPS Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. From the foregoing, it is evident that despite the stringent
requirements imposed on the accused under Section 37 of the NDPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 15 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
Act for the grant of bail, it has been established that these
requirements do not preclude the grant of bail on the ground of undue
delay in the completion of the trial.
29. Various courts have recognized that prolonged incarceration
undermines the right to life, liberty, guarantee under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, and therefore, conditional liberty must take
precedence over the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act.
30. This respondent has been given an opportunity to be heard.
While it is stated that there are certain texts between the applicant and
other co-accused, whether the same shows the applicant’s involvement
in the commission of the offences will only be tested after evidence
has been led by the parties. The applicant has also been able to raise
doubt as to the quantity of recovered contraband. Whether the quantity
is commercial or otherwise, cannot be stated with certainty and would
be determined during the course of trial.
31. At this stage, it cannot be ignored that the applicant has spent
substantial time in custody.
32. The applicant is also stated to be of clean antecedents. This
Court is thus satisfied that the applicant, if released on bail, will not
indulge in similar offence.
33. In such circumstances, this Court considers it apposite to grant
bail to the applicant on the ground of delay in trial.
34. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 16 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court,
on the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with
the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
b. The applicant shall under no circumstance leave the
boundaries of the country without the permission of
the Trial Court;
c. The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial
Court as and when directed;
d. The applicant shall, after his release, appear before the
concerned IO once in every week;
e. The applicant shall provide the address where he
would be residing after his release to the concerned IO
and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO;
f. The applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile
number to the concerned IO and shall keep his mobile
phone switched on at all times.
35. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged
against the applicant, it would be open to the respondent to seek
redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
36. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are
for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 17 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
37. The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
APRIL 01, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 3254/2024 Page 18 of 18
Signing Date:03.04.2025
11:19:55
[ad_1]
Source link