NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 – Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C), 8(c) & 37 – Bail – Commercial quantity of ganja – Conscious possession – Mere absence of individual recovery – Effect – Confessional statements of co-accused – Pending investigation – Statutory embargo under S.37 – Scope.

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 – Ss. 20(b)(ii)(C), 8(c) & 37 – Bail – Commercial quantity of ganja – Conscious possession – Mere absence of individual recovery – Effect – Confessional statements of co-accused – Pending investigation – Statutory embargo under S.37 – Scope.

Petitioner/A-6 sought regular bail in case registered for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w. 8(c) NDPS Act alleging transportation of 50 kilograms of ganja in car and scooties by accused persons – Police allegedly apprehended accused Nos.1 to 7 at spot and seized commercial quantity of contraband valued at Rs.25 lakhs – Petitioner contended that no contraband was recovered from her conscious or exclusive possession; implication based solely on confession statements of co-accused without independent corroboration; no overt act, call data records, financial transactions or forensic material linked her with offence – State opposed bail contending that investigation was pending and statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act applied.

Held : In cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act squarely applies and Court cannot grant bail unless satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit offence while on bail. At stage of bail, detailed examination of evidentiary value of prosecution material or determination regarding conscious possession is impermissible and such matters fall within domain of trial.

Prima facie material disclosed that petitioner was apprehended along with co-accused during alleged transportation of commercial quantity of ganja. Mere contention that no recovery was effected from individual possession of petitioner is insufficient by itself to overcome statutory restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act, particularly when investigation remains pending and charge-sheet has not been filed.

Personal circumstances such as absence of criminal antecedents, long custody, status as housewife and responsibility towards minor children, though relevant, cannot override statutory embargo contained in Section 37 where allegations involve transportation of commercial quantity of narcotic substance.

(Paras 8 to 11)

HELD

Where contraband seized constitutes commercial quantity, Court must satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act before grant of bail, namely, reasonable grounds to believe that accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit offence while on bail. (Para 9)

Question whether accused was in conscious possession of contraband and sufficiency of prosecution material are matters for trial and not for detailed adjudication at stage of bail. (Para 9)

Mere absence of recovery from exclusive possession of accused does not by itself dilute statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act where prima facie material indicates involvement in transportation of commercial quantity of contraband. (Para 10)

Personal circumstances such as absence of antecedents, prolonged custody and responsibility towards children cannot prevail over statutory restrictions governing bail in offences involving commercial quantity under NDPS Act. (Para 10)

RESULT

Criminal Petition dismissed. Petitioner/A-6 held not entitled to regular bail in view of gravity of offence, commercial quantity of contraband allegedly seized and statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act.