news details |
|
|
| Bail application of accused facing trial in NDPS Act dismissed | | |
JAMMU, MAY 21
2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. AK Koul dismissed the bail application of Mohammed Mushtaq s/o Abdul Raheem Dar r/o Bijbehra, Anantnag, who is facing trial in Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that the accused was arrested by the City Police being in possession of four kg and 900 grams of charas and since then he is in custody and facing trial.
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing Advocate KL Pandita appearing for the accused and Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ravinder Sharma, observed that Drug Control Laws have a very important purpose to serve. The plain and apparent object of the NDPS Act is to prevent by a rigid control the possession of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the danger to public health and to guard society against social evils which an uncontrolled trafficking in drug is bound to generate. Commercial trafficking in Narcotic Drugs is the greatest evil of present time and is eating the vitals of the society, besides destabilizing the economy. Youth, who are considered to be the future hope of a society, are falling in the trap of Drugs and if the rigidity of the legislation is relaxed, it is sure to create havoc. The NDPS Act is designed to deal with the class of crimes, which is entirely distinct from the ordinary offences and obviously the provisions of the Act are very stringent and so are bail provisions.
Mr. Koul further observed that Court suppose an offence involving a commercial quantity as in this case, in view of the section 37 of NDPS Act, cannot be considered as an ordinary crime and the Court does not have discretion vested in it to dilute the rigour of section 37 of the Act. All the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner are misconceived more particularly in view of the case. There is no reason in accepting petitioner’s submissions. There is no case for bail made out at this stage. The petition is so misconceived and is accordingly dismissed, the Court maintained
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
