Early Times Report
Jammu, June 6: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the bail plea of Manish Kumar Sharma in a commercial quantity NDPS case, holding that an accused cannot secure bail merely on the ground of prolonged custody unless the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri rejected the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS in FIR No. 10/2022 registered at Police Station Nowabad, Jammu, for offences under Sections 8/20/21/22 of the NDPS Act.
As per the prosecution case, on February 1, 2022, a police patrol party noticed the petitioner standing near JMC Toilet Complex, Jewel Chowk, Jammu, carrying a green-coloured polythene bag. On seeing the police party, he allegedly tried to flee. After being apprehended and searched, he was allegedly found in possession of 100 grams of ganja, 70 Diazepam ampoules, 50 Promethazine ampoules and 25 Buprenorphine ampoules.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate P. S. Pawar argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and that there were material contradictions in the prosecution evidence regarding arrest, seizure, handling of contraband and non-association of independent witnesses despite the alleged recovery being made from a busy public place. He further submitted that the petitioner had been in custody since February 1, 2022 and that continued incarceration violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Opposing the plea, Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh submitted that the recovery involved commercial quantity and the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was clearly attracted. He argued that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the twin conditions required for bail in such cases.
The Court observed that since the prosecution case pertained to recovery of commercial quantity, bail could be granted only if the Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Rejecting the defence plea based on contradictions in witness statements, the Court held that at the stage of bail in cases governed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record findings touching the merits of the prosecution case. The contradictions pointed out by the petitioner, the Court said, may be relevant for trial but cannot at this stage lead to a conclusion that he is not guilty.
The High Court also held that non-association of independent witnesses by itself was not sufficient to overcome the statutory embargo. The evidentiary value of official witnesses and the effect of non-association of independent witnesses, the Court observed, are matters to be assessed during trial.
On the plea of prolonged custody, the Court observed that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right, but it is not an absolute or automatic ground for bail. The Court noted that prolonged incarceration cannot mechanically override the seriousness of the offence and the statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
The Court further observed that the delay in trial was not attributable only to the prosecution or the trial court, as the petitioner had also contributed to the delay. It noted that time was consumed in engaging counsel, filing power of attorney and concluding arguments on charge and discharge. The Court also recorded that on one occasion the Investigating Officer was present before the trial court but could not be examined due to the absence of defence counsel.
The High Court further took note that all prosecution witnesses except the Investigating Officer had already been examined and the trial was at its final stage.
Holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court found no case for grant of bail at this stage and dismissed the application. The trial court was directed to decide the matter expeditiously and independently on the basis of evidence. (JNF) |