Tag: #narcotics

–Report by Shreya Gupta

The petitioner in this case of LAL VEDANT NATH SHAH DEO v STATE (NCT OF DELHI) was Lal Vedant Nath Shah Deo and the respondent was the State. The petitioner filed the application for bail under section 439 of CrPC.

FACTS:

The sub-inspector Gajendra Singh found Raghav Mandal a 23-year-old student of Amity University with 334 grams of charas. He disclosed about the co-accused Himanshu Singh and Lal Vedant Nath Shah Deo who was also arrested. Lal Vedant was arrested under a non-bailable warrant. Raghav further disclosed that he used to get paid Rs. 500 to 1000 for every delivery. Their phones were checked and details of the Paytm account where they used to receive the payments were taken out. The Paytm account details showed that Himanshu Singh had credited a total sum of Rs. 4,70,390 and Rs. 28,03,561.11 to Lal Vedant. The petitioner was charged with section 82 of the CrPC and section 201 of the IPC.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The advocate of the petitioner contends that no incriminating material was obtained from the petitioner on the raid in his house and that his name was earlier not mentioned in the FIR. He states that the rigours of section 37 are not applicable. He stated that section 35 and 54 of the NDPS act is not applicable since there was no conscious and intelligible possession. He stated that only on the basis of the disclosures by the co-accused the petitioner can’t be denied bail. He stated that mere phone calls among the accused and Paytm transactions can’t be the means to deny bail since the accused were college friends.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The advocate contended that a total sum of Rs. 4,70,390 and Rs. 28,03,561.11 was credited to Lal Vedant. He contended that the petitioner tried to run away and was so charged with section 82 of the CrPC and section 201 of IPC for trying to disappear the evidence.

JUDGEMENT:

The court stated that the rigours of section 37 of the NDPS act are not applicable if the cannabis quantity is less than 1 kg and the quantity found in this case is only 334 grams. It further stated that since there is no evidence to show that the transaction between them took place for the recovery therefore it concludes that they were not involved in any other offence under the NDPS act except the buying and selling of drugs. The court stated that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody and therefore the application for bail was passed on some terms and conditions and on the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000. The Hon’ble Supreme Court to conclude referred to the Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT:

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000885

-Report by Sanya Luthra

The case Pawan Arora vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) deals with the petitioner being liable for keeping the substances for which he didn’t possess a suitable license which was considered unlawful and because of this the petitioner has been in custody since 4th August 2020 and Trial Court has also rejected the bail application and observed that the firm did not possess a such license which authorised them to sell those substances.

FACTS:

As a result of some secret information, a raid was conducted in the Jhuggis of Kamla Nehru Camp Kirti Nagar, New Delhi by the Narcotic Cell and because of that raid on the night of 17th and 18th June 2020 when the raid was conducted a huge amount of the consignment of psychotropic substance Tramadol, Nitrazepam based tablets and Codeine based syrups were recovered from the godown situated there. When police inquired about the same then Shravan Kumar (who was there at the time of the raid) revealed that the medicines of the godown belonged to the petitioner and his manager Chander Shekhar. With this an FIR was lodged regarding the same and Shravan Kumar was arrested at that time, later on, it was revealed that the petitioner and his manager had the office of the same substance, later on, the petitioner and his manager were also arrested, further, it was held that the license to sell and possess medicines was of Chander Shekhar. So now it is up to Delhi High Court to check the liability of the three people involved and also to grant bail or not.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

It was put forward by the petitioner that the authenticity of the secret information is doubtful and the petitioner also argued that the license to sell the following substance was there with the petitioner so he was lawful in selling those and it was also stated that these substances do not fall within Schedule I of the NDPS Act hence compliance to Chapter VII A of the NDPS Rules 1985 is not required. Instead, they fall under Schedule H-1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Schedule H-1 has been issued under Rules 65 and 97 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the said substances which have been recovered and have been attributed to the petitioner, fall under Sr.No.20 (Codeine), No.36 (Nitrazepam) and No.45 (Tramadol), so they were emphasizing that they possess a lawful license for everything and can’t be said to conduct unlawful activities.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel from the state argued that the FSL report which has arrived also proves that the substances they were carrying include substances which they were not supposed to be sold or possessed by anyone, that’s why they were having the unlawful substances and should be punished for the same, also the license which they were having was not eligible to possess such substances.

JUDGMENT:

The Delhi High Court held that at this stage when a trial has to be conducted and will take much time and 37 witnesses have to be examined and prima facie it does seem violation of license rules and not of illegal stocking and sale of substances, without a license, so the petitioner can be released on regular bail and therefore he is released on regular bail with the sum amount of 1,00,000 as bond and two sureties with certain conditions which are that he will not leave the country, will provide his all mobile numbers, permanent address, join the investigation and will appear before the court when called.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3DHbrX1

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000688