In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, bail has been granted to the applicant-accused in a case under the NDPS Act. The case, involving charges under Sections 8 (C), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 27(a), 28, 29, 35 and 54(a) of the NDPS Act, had the respondent No.2 vehemently opposing the bail application. Despite the arguments presented, the Court deemed it necessary to consider the applicant’s plea for bail, citing precedents and exercising its discretion. The judgment sheds light on the Court’s decision-making process in such cases.
Facts
- Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1
- Learned advocate Mr. Kartik Pandya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2
- The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail
- The FIR is CR No.05 of 2021 (CR No.NCB/AZU/CR NO.-06 of 2022) registered with the ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad
- The offences are punishable under Sections 8 (C), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 27(a), 28, 29, 35 and 54(a) of the NDPS Act
Arguments
- The bail application for the applicant-accused has been vehemently opposed by learned advocate Mr. Kartik Pandya representing respondent No.2.
- The role attributed to the applicant-accused in the charge-sheet is of a carrier who supplied contraband substance at the behest of another accused.
- The investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed.
- Other co-accused in similar circumstances have already been granted bail by the court.
- The applicant-accused has been in jail since 18.11.2021, which amounts to over two years of incarceration.
- No incriminating material has been found against the applicant-accused.
- Citing precedents, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati supports the bail application.
- The applicant-accused was not named in the FIR but emerged as a suspect based on co-accused statements during the investigation.
- The arrest of the applicant-accused took place on 18.11.2021, and since then, he has been in jail.
- There has been no recovery or discovery of any narcotics from the applicant-accused.
- The applicant-accused’s involvement is based solely on call detail records showing contact with other co-accused.
- The learned advocate Mr. Pandya argued against granting regular bail to the applicant-accused.
- The main reason cited was the constant communication between the applicant-accused and the main accused persons involved in the case.
- The direct involvement of the applicant-accused was highlighted from the charge-sheet papers and call detail records.
- The quantity of heroin involved was significant (118.650 kg) which indicated a commercial nature of the offense, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- The role attributed to the applicant-accused was that of a carrier supplying the contraband to other co-accused.
- The learned advocate representing the State also opposed the grant of bail, noting the seriousness of the applicant’s role.
- Both parties did not request a further detailed order from the court, leading to a decision based on the existing information and arguments.
Analysis
- The applicant-accused has not been named in the FIR and has been implicated based on a statement made by a co-accused.
- The applicant-accused has been in jail for over two years and has not been granted bail while other co-accused in similar situations have been enlarged on bail by the same Court.
- Considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the Court deems it necessary to consider the bail application.
- The Court referred to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
- Without delving into the details of evidence, the Court believes this is a suitable case to exercise discretion and grant bail to the applicant.
- The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
- Specific conditions are imposed on the applicant upon release including not misusing liberty, not acting in a manner detrimental to the prosecution’s interests, surrendering any passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, marking regular presence at the Police Station, and notifying any change of residence to the Investigating Officer and Court.
- The applicant will only be released if not required in connection with any other offense at the time.
Decision
- Execution of bail bond before lower Court required
- Court has authority to modify or delete conditions
- Trial Court should not be influenced by preliminary observations
- Rule is absolute to the mentioned extent
- Sessions Judge can take action in case of breach of conditions
Case Title: IQBAL ALIMIYA KADRI @ IQBAL BHANGARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/6678/2024
