A recent legal case has brought to light a groundbreaking analysis on bail and the NDPS Act by the court. The judgment delves deeply into the provisions of the Act and sets a new precedent in legal analysis. This has far-reaching implications for future cases and could potentially reshape how bail is approached in similar situations. Stay tuned for more insights on this significant development.
Facts
- Complaint filed under the N.D.P.S. Act against Shivaprakash, Ragini Dwivedi, Veeren Khanna, Prashanth Ranka, Vaibhav Jain, Adithya Alva, Lume Pepper @Simon, Prashanth Raju, Ashwin @ Boogi, Abhiswamy, Rahul Tonse, Vinay and others.
- Request for suitable legal action based on the complaint.
- Enclosed copy of Statement by B.K.Ravishankar and Whatsapp messages.
- Appellant’s bail application was rejected by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge on 28.09.2020.
- The rejection was based on the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- High Court, in the impugned Judgment dated 03.11.2020, also rejected bail.
- High Court relied on B.K.Ravishankar’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the case diary.
- The parameters set out in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were considered in rejecting bail.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Analysis
- The investigation revealed that a network was involved in illegal drug activities and financial transactions.
- Drugs were sourced from different states in India and even from foreign countries.
- The drugs were supplied in Five Star Hotels, Pubs, Dance parties, Music programs, and Farm Houses in Bangalore.
- The targeted attendees included Industrialists, Celebrities, Actors, Actresses, DJs, Software Employees, and others.
- Specific messages were exchanged between the accused and drug peddlers regarding the quality and quantity of drugs.
- The investigation began based on information gathered from known sources and messages sent by the accused to the peddlers.
- Search of the appellant’s premises did not yield any drugs.
- The case against the appellant is primarily based on a statement and case diary.
- The appellant was charged on conspiracy grounds, which was found to be tenuous by the High Court.
- No chargesheet has been filed till date.
- If any offence is made out, it would be under Section 27 for consuming drugs at parties.
- The maximum sentence for such consumption is one year under Section 27(a) and six months under Section 27(b).
- Section 37 was wrongly invoked by lower courts and the High Court.
- Enlarging the appellant on bail as Section 37 does not apply.
- Observations in this judgment should not affect the investigation or trial.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Decision
- Leave granted for the SLP (CRL.) No. 6185 of 2020.
- Impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside.
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment in SLP (Crl.) 5998 of 2020 applies in this case as well.
- In case of arrest in connection with Crime No 588/2018 at Police Station Banasawadi, Bengaluru, appellant to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
- Appellant (Shivaprakash) granted anticipatory bail.
Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis
Case Title: RAGINI DWIVEDI @GINI @RAGS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (2021 INSC 38)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000062-000062 / 2021
