The Delhi High Court has dismissed a regular bail application moved by a man charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, while noting that the contraband recovered from the premises under his possession is commercial in nature and thereby attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the Act.
A single-judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a bail application moved by an accused charged under Sections 15 (punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw), 61 (confiscation of goods used for concealing illicit drugs or substances) and 85 of the NDPS Act.
At the outset, in February 2019, during the course of routine patrolling in Delhi’s Wazirabad area, two persons on a bike were apprehended by the Delhi Police for having poppy husk in their possession.
During the course of investigation, the two persons named the accused herein as the source of the contraband and divulged details of the place whereby poppy straw was stored by the supplier. Subsequently, a raid was conducted at the said premises, from where more than 900 kilograms of poppy straw was seized, along with certain machines. The owner of the premises in question revealed that the place was taken on rent by the accused herein since 2019.
The accused was declared as a proclaimed offender in June 2019, and eventually, in March 2021, he surrendered before the Trial Court.
Analyzing the objective of the NDPS Act, Justice Singh observed thus:
“The offences prescribed under the Act are not only a menace to a particular individual but to the entire society especially, the youth of the country. Such offences have a cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a big chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years. Therefore, in order to prevent the devastating impact on the people of the nation, Parliament in its wisdom deemed it fit to introduce stringent conditions for grant of bail under the Act. The Court has to stay mindful of the legislative intent and mandate of the Act while granting bail in such matters.”
It was further observed that in such offences, the Court is not merely required to be satisfied about dual conditions i.e., prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offence while on bail, but must also have ‘reasonable grounds’ for such satisfaction.
Taking into consideration the mischief sought to be curbed by the Act, recovery of large commercial quantity of contraband from the premises in possession of the accused and the apprehension that he is likely to commit an offence of a similar nature if enlarged on bail, the Court dismissed the instant bail application.