#HC grants bail to NDPS case accused | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bhattandjoshiassociates-blog · 6 months

Text

Bombay HC grants bail to accused in NDPS case as search and seizure was not done as per law

Introduction - The article is about a case where the Bombay HC granted bail to a 22-year-old man, who was accused of possessing 50 kg of ganja at his residence, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). - The accused, Shivraj Gorakh Satpute, was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on the basis of a search and seizure operation conducted at his residence after getting information from a co-accused. - The accused challenged the validity of the search and seizure operation and sought bail on the ground that the NCB did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act before conducting the operation. - The trial court had denied the bail application, on the grounds that the accused had a commercial quantity of ganja and had not complied with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, which made him ineligible for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. - The Bombay High Court granted bail to the accused, subject to certain conditions, and observed that the search and seizure operation was not done as per law and raised doubt about the recovery of ganja from the accused’s premises. Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act - Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act empowers any officer of the NCB or any other officer authorized by the Central Government to enter, search, seize and arrest any person in any place where he has reason to believe that an offence under the NDPS Act has been or is being committed. - The section also provides that such officer shall, as soon as may be, inform his immediate official superior of the information received by him, the grounds for such belief, the reason for such entry, search, seizure or arrest and send a copy of such information to his official superior within seventy-two hours. - The section further provides that if it is not possible to comply with these requirements due to the urgency of the situation or due to any other reason, then such officer shall record the grounds for his belief and send a copy of such grounds to his official superior within seventy-two hours. Arguments of the accused - The accused contended that the search and seizure operation was illegal and invalid as the NCB officer did not inform his immediate official superior of the information received by him, the grounds for such belief, the reason for such entry, search, seizure or arrest before conducting the operation as required by Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. - The accused also contended that the NCB officer did not record the grounds for his belief and send a copy of such grounds to his official superior within seventy-two hours as required by Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. - The accused relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts which held that compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act is mandatory and non-compliance would render the search and seizure operation illegal and invalid. Arguments of the NCB in Bombay HC - The NCB opposed the bail application and submitted that the search and seizure operation was valid and legal as per Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. - The NCB claimed that the NCB officer had informed his immediate official superior of the information received by him, the grounds for such belief, the reason for such entry, search, seizure or arrest before conducting the operation as required by Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. - The NCB also claimed that the NCB officer had recorded the grounds for his belief and sent a copy of such grounds to his official superior within seventy-two hours as required by Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. - The NCB produced a copy of the information given by the NCB officer to his immediate official superior before conducting the operation and a copy of his report containing the grounds for his belief sent to his official superior within seventy-two hours. Observation and decision of the Bombay HC - The Bombay High Court examined the copy of the information given by the NCB officer to his immediate official superior before conducting the operation and found that it was vague and general. - The court also observed that there was no evidence to show that it was given before conducting the operation. - The court further noted that there was no endorsement or acknowledgment by the official superior on receiving such information within seventy-two hours as required by Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. - The court held that these facts cast serious doubts on the genuineness and validity of the information given by the NCB officer to his immediate official superior before conducting the operation as required by Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. - The court relied on the following judgments in the NDPS case of Shivraj Gorakh Satpute: - Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesar, (2007) 7 SCC 798: This judgment held that the expression “reasonable grounds” in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act means something more than prima facie grounds and connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. It also held that compliance with the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is a factual matter that should be addressed during the trial1 - State of Rajasthan v Jagraj Singh @ Hansa, (2016) 11 SCC 687: This judgment held that compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act is mandatory and non-compliance would render the search and seizure operation illegal and invalid. It also held that the information given by the officer to his immediate official superior before conducting the operation must be specific and not vague or general2 - Boota Singh and ors v State of Haryana, 2021 SCC Online SC 324: This judgment held that compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act is mandatory and non-compliance would render the search and seizure operation illegal and invalid. It also held that the information given by the officer to his immediate official superior before conducting the operation must be given before and not after the operation3 - Union of India through Narcotic Control Bureau, Lucknow v Md. Nawaz Khan, Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2021: This judgment held that compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act is mandatory and non-compliance would render the search and seizure operation illegal and invalid. It also held that in exceptional circumstances where immediate action is required, the officer may record the grounds for his belief after the operation, along with the reasons for the delay4 - Based on these precedents, the court granted bail to the accused subject to certain conditions, such as furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in like amount, reporting to the investigating officer once in a fortnight, not leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, etc. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial. Conclusion about decision of Bombay HC - The article summarises a case where the Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused in a case registered under the NDPS Act as the search and seizure operation conducted by the NCB at his premises was doubtful. - The court held that the search and seizure operation was illegal and invalid as the NCB officer did not comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. Learn more: - lawinsider.in - livelaw.in - lawfoyer.in - indiankanoon.org - lawinsider.in - hcservices.ecourts.gov.in - indianexpress.com Read the full article

0 notes

todaynewsguru · 2 years

Text

HC grants bail to NDPS case accused, says speedy trial constitutional right

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) while granting bail to an NDPS case accused, who has been in custody for nearly three-and-a-half years, said that speedy trial is constitutional right of the accused. The Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl, while hearing the second bail petition filed by Gaurav Gandhi, booked on March 21, 2019, under Sections 21/61/29/85 of NDPS Act and Section 201 of IPC,…

View On WordPress

0 notes

gokul2181 · 4 years

Text

Exclusive! Vikram Bhatt, Raza Murad and Kunicka Lall share their views on High Court granting bail to Rhea Chakraborty | Hindi Movie News

New Post has been published on https://jordarnews.in/exclusive-vikram-bhatt-raza-murad-and-kunicka-lall-share-their-views-on-high-court-granting-bail-to-rhea-chakraborty-hindi-movie-news/

Exclusive! Vikram Bhatt, Raza Murad and Kunicka Lall share their views on High Court granting bail to Rhea Chakraborty | Hindi Movie News

While the NDPS court on Tuesday, extended Rhea Chakraborty‘s judicial custody till October 20, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday morning granted her bail. Meanwhile, her brother Showik Chakraborty’s bail plea was rejected.

Several Bollywood celebrities like Taapsee Pannu, Anubhav Sinha, Hansal Mehta and others took to social media to express their views on Bombay HC’s decision. In an exclusive conversation with ETimes, filmmaker Vikram Bhatt expressed his take on the HC’s decision and said, “I am happy that she has got bail but she has a long fight in front of her to prove her innocence because getting bail is not a judgement, it is an interim relief and I hope she is able to prove her innocence.”

Veteran Bollywood actor Raza Murad also shared his views on the court granting Rhea bail in the drug-related matter connected with Sushant Singh Rajput’s death case. He said, “It is the birthright of every under trial citizen of our country to apply for bail, and its the prerogative of the honourable judge to either grant or reject it. The honourable judge must have granted the bail on some valid grounds. None of us should have any objection to the court’s decision. Granting a bail does not mean that the accused has been acquitted or given a clean chit. The final judgement is yet to come so let’s wait and watch for the outcome.”

Kunicka Lall also shared her view on Rhea’s bail plea verdict and said, “Under 27A for which Rhea was kept in jail for one month and under that provision the lower court had decided not to give her bail. I am glad that HC has granted her bail and she is out of jail. Bail is the right and jail is not supposed to be the norm in our country unless it is rarest of rare crimes and in this case, they had no confiscation of any material from her.”

Furthermore, she added, “The procurement of drugs by her which they were saying according to me she was buying the drugs on behest of somebody else. Unfortunately, that person is dead and cannot give his version. But the fact is that they kept her in jail, it was media trial that took over the case and no matter what we say the perception of anybody, any human being definitely gets swayed. So many fictitious accounts created to hype the issue and now I hope this is a fair and balanced judicial probe. Even Sushant Singh Rajput’s family needs to answer a lot of questions.”

While the HC has granted Rhea bail, they have pronounced a few conditions like marking her presence for 10 days at the police station after release, depositing her passport and a few more. Apart from Rhea, Samuel Miranda and Dipesh Sawant’s bail plea was also accepted by the court.

Source link

0 notes

rbbox · 4 years

Photo

After spending a month in jail, actress Rhea Chakraborty was granted bail by the Bombay High Court. She, along with her brother Showik Chakraborty had applied for bail after their judicial custody was extended two weeks ago. While Rhea was granted bail, Showik's plea was rejected.

Rhea Chakraborty was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on September 8 on the charges of procuring drugs. They even accused her of being an “active member of a drug syndicate”. The court in its verdict today squashed accusations made by the NCB and said that she was not a part of a chain of drug dealers.

Here are some of the main points made by the judge in the bail verdict:

* I am unable to agree with the submission that giving money to another for consuming drugs would mean encouraging such a habit and would mean "financing" or "harbouring" as envisaged under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. (law on financing drugs, directly or indirectly).

* The investigation did not reveal any recovery of any commercial amount of drugs either from Rhea Chakraborty or from the house of Sushant Singh Rajput. There is nothing at this stage to show that (Rhea) had committed any offence involving commercial quantity of contraband.

* I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty of any offence punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A or any other offence involving commercial quantity.

* There are no other criminal antecedents against her. She is not part of the chain of drug dealers. She has not forwarded the drugs allegedly procured by her to somebody else to earn monetary other benefits. Since she has no criminal antecedents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

* The learned ASG had argued that celebrities and role models should be treated harshly so that it sets an example for the young generation and they do not get encouraged to commit such offences. I do not agree. Everybody is equal before law. No celebrity or role model enjoys any special privilege before the Court of law. Similarly, such a person also does not incur any special liability when he faces law in the Courts. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits irrespective of the status of the accused.

* There is no basis for the worry that Rhea Chakraborty can alert other witnesses or destroy evidence. Noting that the bureau did not seek her custody, the judge said that meant they are satisfied with her interrogation and she had cooperated in that investigation.

ALSO READ: Shabana Azmi reacts after Rhea Chakraborty finally gets bail, Dia Mirza questions her bail rejection

October 07, 2020 at 03:54PMBombay HC dismisses charges of ‘financing’ or ‘harbouring’ of drugs in Rhea Chakraborty’s bail order; says she is not part of a chain of drug dealers https://ift.tt/36JnSls

#tech news #bollywood #hollywood

0 notes

marymosley · 5 years

Text

Right to Get Anticipatory Bail is not any Fundamental Right: Punjab and Haryana HC

It has to be remarked right at the outset that in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Sanjiv Sharma @ Sanjeev Sharma Vs State of Haryana in CRM-M No. 21859 of 2019 delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 3, 2019, it has been held loud and clear that right to get anticipatory bail is not any fundamental right. This sharp observation was made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court while rejecting an application filed by a man involved in a case registered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat who authored this judgment (oral) held very clearly that the statutory power of granting pre-arrest bail is so extraordinary that it is not even available in some parts of the country! Very rightly so!

To start with, the ball is set rolling in the first para of this noteworthy judgment wherein it is pointed out that, “The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 0120 dated 08-04-2019 registered under Section 15/61 Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala.”

Moving on, it is then elaborated upon in the next para that, “The FIR in the present case came to be registered on the statement of Inspector Keval Singh, CIA Staff, Naraingarh in which it was stated that he had received secret information that one red coloured closed body Canter, bearing registration No. HR 68-B-8648 was standing on kacha road leading to Kala Amb towards Ruchra factory, whose driver is stopping many truck drivers on the way and he is having some kind of secret conversation with them. This led the police officers to have suspicion that the said driver was having some contraband substance in his possession. The information in this regard was sent to Mr. Amit Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Naraingarh for information. On the said secret information, the above said inspector along with his companion police officials reached the spot and on reaching there, the police party found that red coloured closed body Canter bearing registration number as stated above, was parked on the road and a person was found sitting on the driver seat. The driver was asked to come down and he disclosed his name as Ravinder Singh alias Jonku. After having been given due notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the search of the vehicle was conducted in the presence of Mr. Amit Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Naraingarh. During the search, apart from some small drums which were loaded in the Canter, four plastic bags were found; whose mouth had been sealed. Out of these, two were found to be of white colour and two were of black colour. On being questioned, the said driver Ravinder Singh disclosed that these plastic bags were having poppy husk. Accordingly, the bags were taken out from the Canter. On being weighed, total quantity of poppy husk found in these bags was 1 quintal and 60 kilograms. Samples were drawn out of that. On further questioning, the registration certificate of the Canter was found. Canter was found to be owned by one Himanshu Bhalla, resident of Panchkula. He was also joined in the investigation, from whom it came out that 200 drums were loaded in the Canter from Mumbai and were to be taken to Mukhmajra, Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly, the FIR was registered.”

Going forward, it is then pointed out in the next para that, “During the investigation above said Ravinder Singh disclosed that he had got the above said poppy husk from the present petitioner. Hence, the name of the petitioner also came to be involved in this case.”

To put things in perspective, it is then stated in the next para that, “While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, admittedly, the petitioner was not found to be present on the spot. Nothing has been recovered from him. His name has been included in the case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, from whom the recovery has been effected. Still further, it is submitted that police have tried to change the nature of the case, by substituting the name of the petitioner in place of some other person, who was allegedly named originally by the co-accused as the supplier of the drugs. The counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon an judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Jaz Singh versus State of Haryana, 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 454, to contend that since the petitioner was not found at the spot, therefore, he is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.”

On the contrary, it is then pointed out in the next para that, “On the other hand, learned counsel for the State on being instructed by SI Krishan Lal, CIA Staff, Naraingarh, submits that sufficient material has been found against the petitioner to justify his custodial interrogation. It is disputed by counsel for the State that anybody else was named by the co-accused. There was no substitution of name of the petitioner in place of somebody else. It is further submitted by counsel for the State that, in fact, the co-accused has named the supplier as Billa referring him as owner of the dhaba. The name Billa is referable only to the present petitioner and nobody else. It is also pointed out that the present petitioner has been pretending to be the owner of the dhabha to ensure that his supplies are taken in appropriate manner by the drivers of the trucks, who were having stop-over at this Dhaba. To justify the custodial interrogation, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that during the investigation conducted so far, besides the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the call details taken by the investigating officer, have also shown a connection of the petitioner with the co-accused arrested for drug trafficking in this case. Learned State counsel has pointed out that before the date of occurrence itself, the petitioner has been found to have talked with co-accused on mobile phone. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he is not involved in the case. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is having another case of similar nature as well, registered against him at different police station.”

Simply put, the next para then states that, “To counter the arguments of learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that another case was also of the same date, as is of the present case.”

Most importantly, it is then very rightly underscored in the next para while holding that, “No doubt, the accused as a citizen has a fundamental right to life and liberty. However, that right to life and liberty can very well be curtailed in accordance with the procedure established by law. As per the procedure prescribed for Criminal Administration of Justice, the normal procedure for curtailing the life and liberty of the accused, Cr.P.C. prescribes that the Investigating Officer can arrest an accused even without warrant and without assistance/interference of the Court. However, to ensure that a person is not unduly harassed, the circumstances are leading, predominantly towards ex facie innocence of the accused, the Courts have been given special and extraordinary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This statutory power of granting pre-arrest bail is so extraordinary that it is not even available in all parts of the country; and even through-out the country qua some offences under special statutes. Hence, right to get anticipatory bail is not any fundamental right. The provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. provides only a remedy to an accused and leaves the extent of right to liberty to be decided by the Court.”

As it turned out, it is then observed in the next para that, “In the present case this court finds that a person has been arrested with a very heavy quantity of the contraband. He has specifically named the petitioner as the person who has supplied this contraband to him. There is nothing on record, as of now, to suggest that the petitioner has no connection with the said co-accused, in any manner whatsoever. Rather as per the record of the police the petitioner is alleged to have repeated contacts with the co-accused from whom the recovery is stated to have been made. Therefore, this Court does not find any mitigating circumstance, showing ex-facie innocence of the accused, qua the allegations levelled against him. Moreover, since the police claims to have collected some material relatable to the petitioner qua the offence, therefore, this court finds substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the State that the police deserve to be given an opportunity to investigate the case in the manner considered appropriate by it. Since the petitioner has been alleged to be in repeated contact with the co-accused, from whom the recovery has been made, this court finds that protecting the petitioner against his arrest at this stage would hamper the free and fair investigation of the case.”

As things stand, it is then held in the next para that, “Although, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Jaz Singh (supra), however, this court finds that the facts of the present case are totally distinguishable as compared to the facts of the judgment in aforesaid case. In that case the positive claim of the petitioner was that he had engaged the co-accused as a driver on the truck owned by him and that driver had mis-conducted himself leading to the offence. He further argued that he was not even present at the spot when the recovery was made by the police. Beyond the fact that the person was owner of the vehicle in that case, there was nothing on record to suggest that he was involved in the offence. However, in the present case the police file contains definite incriminating material which can lead to a positive connection of the petitioner with the consignment allegedly recovered from the co-accused.”

In conclusion, it is then finally held in the last para that, “In view of the above, but without commenting any further on merits of the case, this court does not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.”

All said and done, this latest, landmark and extremely commendable judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeks to make it absolutely clear that right to get anticipatory bail is not any fundamental right. At the risk of repetition, it must be again pointed out that it is emphatically asserted in this noteworthy judgment that the statutory power of granting pre-arrest bail is so extraordinary that it is not even available in some parts of the country. It is also very rightly held that it is the court which has to take the final call and decide finally on whether to grant or not to grant an anticipatory bail to the accused! There can be no denying it!

The post Right to Get Anticipatory Bail is not any Fundamental Right: Punjab and Haryana HC appeared first on Legal Desire.

Right to Get Anticipatory Bail is not any Fundamental Right: Punjab and Haryana HC published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

postolo · 5 years

Text

Tri HC | Why is it so facile for NDPS accused to get bail: DGP to submit report on manner of investigation

Tripura High Court: Appalled at the shocking revelations made in a bail application, the Bench of Sanjay Karol, CJ. asked for a detailed tabulated data on the number of people granted bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the reasons for granting such bail.

While hearing a bail application on behalf of Krishna Kumar, who along with four others were found consciously possessing 298 kilograms of a contraband substance, the Court made the above-mentioned observations. Another accused in the same case, Pritam Roy, was granted ad-interim bail by a Special Judge on humanitarian grounds. During the hearing of the present case, the Director General of Police (Tripura) was also present. Under instructions from the DGP, a statement with regard to the status of the cases under the provision of the NDPS Act and release of the accused persons only for the year 2018 was furnished. According to this statement, 435 out of 660 people against whom a case was registered under the NDPS Act, were granted bail.

When presented with such shocking data, the learned Judge asked for the reason why was it so facile for accused to get bail under the NDPS Act. The Court questioned “the reasons for grant of bail; is it what is commonly termed as a default bail; is it that the Public Prosecutor conceded to the grant of bail; is it that the Public Prosecutors did not oppose the same; is it that the Courts have passed the orders without following the settled principles of law; or is it that innocent stand falsely implicated. If so, then why no action, in accordance with law, stands taken against the erring persons by the authorities?”

The DGP, Tripura was directed to submit a detailed report of all cases registered under NDPS Act in 2018 in the State of Tripura. It was directed that such report should also include the reasons for the grant of bail (if any) among others.[Haricharan Biswas v. State of Tripura, Bail Application No. 149 of 2018, Order dated 10-01-2019]

The post Tri HC | Why is it so facile for NDPS accused to get bail: DGP to submit report on manner of investigation appeared first on SCC Blog.

Tri HC | Why is it so facile for NDPS accused to get bail: DGP to submit report on manner of investigation published first on https://sanantoniolegal.tumblr.com/

0 notes