Delhi High Court
Ravi Zhinga 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. 2813/2024
RAVI ZHINGA .....Applicant
versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant : Mr. Nishant Singh, Advocate
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/24/DZU/23, registered for offences under Sections 8 (c), 20
(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act‘).
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 1 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
2.1. On 29.05.2023, a secret information was received that one
person, namely, Gajender Singh, will come for booking a parcel
containing narcotic drugs at DTDC Courier. On the basis of the said
information, accused Gajender was intercepted by the raiding team
when he arrived at the DTDC Office. It is alleged that accused
Gajender was carrying a light green envelop. A recovery of 15 LSD
paper blots, weighing 0.3 g, was effectuated from the said envelop. It
is alleged that at the instance of accused Gajender, a recovery of 650
LDS Blots was made from his home as well.
2.2. It is alleged that the accused Gajender admitted his complicity
in the offence in his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He
further disclosed that he used to book parcels on the directions of co-
accused Shainu. Thereafter, co-accused Shainu disclosed that she had
purchased the LSD Blots from her friend- Sarabjeet Singh and gave
his details.
2.3. A search was conducted at the disclosed address of co-accused
Sarabjeet Singh in Jaipur and a recovery of 9006 LSD Blots and 1.116
Kg of Ganja along with ₹4,65,500/- was made from there.
2.4. It is alleged that co-accused Sarabjeet disclosed about a few
other consignments in his disclosure statement.
2.5. One such consignment bearing no. W60822411 had been
delivered to one Manthan Raina in Noida. During search of the
address in Noida, a recovery of a total of 84 LSD Blots was made
from there.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 2 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
2.6. Co-accused Manthan in his statement under Section 67 of the
NDPS act disclosed the name of the applicant. He stated that that the
parcel was ordered by one Yuvanshu, who knew many dealers on
darknet and wickr. He further stated that the applicant, who was his
friend, had paid ₹30,000/- to Yuvanshu for procuring the concerned
parcel and it was the applicant who had shared his address and mobile
number with Yuvanshu. He further stated that the applicant had sent
the tracking number of the parcel to him. It is alleged that the
applicant admitted to his complicity in the crime in his disclosure
statement.
2.7. During follow up action in relation to other parcels (the details
of which had been disclosed by co-accused Sarabjeet), the following
recoveries were affected:
a. Parcel no. RR673997169L: Intercepted at Post Office
Mahasainik, Pune and a recovery of 5006 LSD Blots was made
from the parcel.
b. Parcel No. W60803432: Intercepted at the DTDC courier
Service, Kerala and a recovery of 100 LSD Blots was made
from the parcel. Further, co-accused Saneesh Soman was
apprehended when he came to collect the said parcel.
c. Parcel No. W60803434: Intercepted at the DTDC Express Ltd.,
Aminjikarai, Chennai, and a recovery of 100 LSD Blots was
made from the parcel.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 3 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
the disclosure statement of co-accused Manthan and no recovery has
been effectuated from him.
4. He further submitted that co-accused Manthan and the applicant
have retracted their disclosure statements. He submitted that the
disclosure statements cannot be used against the applicant in view of
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v.
State of Tamil Nadu: (2021) 4 SCC 1.
5. He submitted that there is no money trail or incriminating
evidence which links the applicant to the present offence and the
rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted against him.
6. He submitted that the recovery in questions involves 1.4 grams
of Blots, which is alleged to contain LSD drops. He submitted that
without FSL report, it cannot be conclusively established that the
blotter paper contains LSD drops or the precise quantity of recovered
substance. He submitted that there is thus no clarity as to whether the
recovered contraband is of small, intermediate or commercial quantity,
and in such circumstances, treating the alleged recovery to be one of
commercial quantity will prejudice the applicant.
7. He further submitted that while the prosecution alleges that
chats were recovered from a device purportedly belonging to the
applicant, however, as per the Certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the device in question is not registered in
the name of the applicant.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 4 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
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 31.05.2023 and
the charges are yet to be framed in the present case. He submitted that
there are thirty-nine 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 applicant is actively involved in the
commission of the offence and there is no evidence on record to show
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not
guilty of the alleged offence.
12. He submitted that the combined weight of the blotter paper,
which is a neutral substance, and LSD is relevant to determine small
or commercial quantities. He relied upon the 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 5 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
13. He submitted that there are various chats in regard to the
contraband and their prices and photographs of the present applicant
with the co-accused Yuvanshu.
14. He submitted that the applicant had shared picture of LSD Blots
along with tracking number of parcel with co-accused Manthan. He
submitted that co-accused Yuvanshu, who used to place orders on
Dark-Web, and further send the details to the applicant is absconding.
15. He submitted that there are chats between co-accused Yuvanshu
and the applicant as well where they are discussing about Zambarda
Cartel and huge quantity of LSD Blots.
ANALYSIS
16. 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
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.
17. It is unequivocally established that, to be granted bail, the
accused charged with offence under the NDPS Act must fulfil the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 6 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
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.”
18. In the present case, it is essentially argued that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the
applicant has essentially been implicated at this stage on the basis of
the disclosure of co-accused and certain purported chats between the
applicant and co-accused Manthan. It is further argued that the weight
of the blotter paper cannot be included while determining the
recovered quantity and in absence of FSL report, it cannot be stated
that the recovered quantity is commercial in nature as the exact
quantity of contraband has not been determined.
19. It is the case of the prosecution that the co-accused Sarabjeet
disclosed the details of a few consignments, out of which, one
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 7 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
consignment had been sent to co-accused Manthan at his address in
Noida. On search of the said address, a recovery of 84 LSD Blots was
effected. Co-accused Manthan named the applicant in his disclosure
statement and stated that the applicant had helped procure the parcel
by paying ₹30,000/-.
20. It is relevant to note that while the veracity of the disclosure
statement of the co-accused is to be tested at the time of the trial, this
Court cannot lose sight of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), wherein it was held
that a disclosure statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is
impermissible as evidence without corroboration. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment is set out below:-
“155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional
statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or
Section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS
Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with Section 25 of
the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct
infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles
14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
156. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal then goes on to follow Raj
Kumar Karwal in paras 44 and 45. For the reasons stated by us
hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly,
and are thus overrules by us. Other judgments that expressly refer
to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down
by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by
us.
157. On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this
judgment, the judgments or Noor Aga and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan
v. Inspector, Customs are correct in law.
158. We answer the reference by stating:
158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under
Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the
meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which
any confessional statement made to them would be barred under
the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot beSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 8 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
taken into account in order to convict an accused under the
NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an
offence under the NDPS Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. The prosecution has alleged that certain chats have also been
found between the applicant and co-accused Manthan in relation to the
concerned parcel which corroborate the disclosure of co-accused
Manthan.
22. It is argued that as per the certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the device in question is not registered in
the name of the applicant. Whether the applicant is involved in the
commission of the offences and the veracity of the disclosure
statements will only be tested after evidence has been led by the
parties. However, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that no recovery
has been effected from the applicant. This Court does not deem it
appropriate to comment further on the said aspect at this stage.
23. As far as the inclusion of weight of blotter paper in the
recovered quantity, the learned SSC has referred to certain judgments
where it has been held that the blotter paper weight is to be included in
recovered quantity.
24. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 9 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
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 substance
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 10 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
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…
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 11 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
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
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 12 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 13 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
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)
25. The said view has been subsequently adopted by a number of
different Courts as well. This Court does not consider it apposite to
comment on the issue as raised by the applicant at this stage
considering the ambit of the present proceedings, especially given the
view taken by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Court at present is not
discussing the interpretation of the small quantity so stipulated and is
seized with merely the question of bail.
26. It also cannot be ignored that the present case is one where the
applicant was arrested on 31.05.2023, despite which, the charges have
not been framed (as on the date when the matter was reserved for
judgment). Thirty-nine 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 14 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
27. 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,
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 15 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
belongs to the weakest economic strata : immediate loss of
livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as
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)
28. 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.
29. 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)
30. 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. 2813/2024 Page 16 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
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.
31. 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.
32. The evidence, at this stage, which implicates the applicant is the
disclosure statement of co-accused and certain chats allegedly
exchanged between the applicant and co-accused. The applicant has
denied that the instrument from which chats were shown to have been
exchanged with the co-accused belongs to him. It is pointed out that
the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
indicates that the instrument belongs to some other person. It is
alleged that a sum of ₹30,000/- was paid by the applicant to Yuvanshu
to procure the contraband. However, at this stage, no money trail has
been investigated and the same remains only a disclosure of co-
accused at the moment. At this stage, it cannot be ignored that the
applicant has spent substantial time in custody and the trial has still
not started.
33. The applicant is stated to be of clean antecedents. This Court is
thus satisfied that the applicant, if released on bail, will not indulge in
similar offence.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 17 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of bail.
35. 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
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.
36. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged
against the applicant, it would be open to the respondent to seek
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 18 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
37. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are
for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not
influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
38. The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
APRIL 01, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR BAIL APPLN. 2813/2024 Page 19 of 19
Signing Date:02.04.2025
17:47:26
[ad_1]
Source link