Natecepatory bail in ndps case based on the confession of co-accused
dawood ahmed
(Querist) 11 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
RESPECTED MEMBERS,
IN A CRIMINAL CASE, A WHITE POWDER OF ONE KILO GRAM IS ALLEGED TO BE SEIZED FROM A-1 WHILE HE WAS CARRYING ON HIS BIKE. ON ENQUIRY BY THE POLICE THE A-1 HAS STATED THAT THE SAID WHITE POWDER IS ALPRAZOLAM, HE WAS GOING TO SUPPLY THE SAME TO THE TODDY SELLERS WHO ADULTERATE THE TODDY WITH THE SAID POWDER FOR KICK. A-1 FURTHER STATED THAT HE IS DOING THIS BUSINESS ALONG WITH A-2. INFACT A-1 IS RELATIVE OF A-2 AND THERE IS SOME FAMILY DISCARD BUT THERE IS NO PROOF OF IT AND A-1 AUSPECTED A-2 TO HAVE INFORMED THE POLICE ABOUT A-1'S BUSINESS SO A-1 CONFESSED FALSELY IMPLICATING A-2.POLICE ISSUED FIR IMPLICATING A-2.
IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES A-2 WANTS TO APPLY FOR ANTECEPATORY BAIL. WHAT WILL BE THE PROSPECTS? ANY CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF A-2.
OFCOURSE THERE IS RECENT RULING OF APEX COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT CONFESSION OF CO-ACCUSED IS NOT AN EVIDENCE WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SEC 3 OF IE ACT. IT CANT BE BASIS FOR CONVICTION ETC. ETC.
BUT GENERALLY COURTS WONT BE LENIENT IN NDPS CASES AND ITS ONLY BAIL STAGE HOWEVER WEEK MAY BE THE CASE, COURTS NOT LIBERAL IN 438 CrPC RELIEF.
WHAT DO YOU SAY SIR? ANY GUIDANCE PLEASE!
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 11 January 2012
It is better to try in anticipatory bail as in petition u0s 437 crpc taking the accused person in custody is for sure.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 January 2012
As you have admitted in your query that NDPS itself is not a light case and courts do not take it leniently so forget getting anticipatory bail rather face trial so that it may be finished as soon as possible.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 January 2012
You may expect regular bail if challan is not put within 90 days of arrest or may wait for the submission of challan so that you may apply for the regular bail in such matter.
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 12 January 2012
In NDPS ACT there is a few chances of getting anticipatory bail. So try for regular bail
dawood ahmed
(Querist) 12 January 2012
RESPECTED SIR,
OFCOURSE NDPS OFFENCE IS A SERIOUS MATTER. BUT IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE SOME POWDER IS SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF A-1 & HE CLAIMS IT TO BE ALPRAZOLAM AND DOING BUSINESS OF THE SAME IN PARTNERSHIP WITH A-2. ON THE FACE OF IT A-1 APPEARS TO BE MAKING MISCHIEF TO IMPLICATE A-2 AND BESIDES HIS CONFESSION THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT MATERIAL OR PRIMAFACIE CASE AGAINST A-2.
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHY SHOULD A-2 SUFFER AND BE IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS TOGETHER? JUST BECAUSE THE CASE IS BOOKED UNDER NDPS ACT. EVEN THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IS ALSO IN FAVOUR OF GRANTING BAIL TO A-2. BECAUSE IF HE IS MADE TO SUFFER IN JAIL AND SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND NO CASE AGAINST HIM, HE WILL BE SUFFERING IRREPARABLE LOSS. ON THE CONTRARY AS A COMMON MAN A-2 CANT INFLUENCE THE EVIDENCE AND AS HAVING PERMANENT ABODE AND WITH CLEAN ANTECEDENTS PROCESS OF LAW WILL NOT BE AFFECTED.
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COURT SHOULD NOT PUT HIM TO HARDSHIP AND LOSS JUST BECAUSE THE CASE IS BOOKED UNDER THE NDPS ACT. COURT SHOULD ALSO SEE WHETHER THERE IS ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WORTH THE NAME?
SUPPOSE SOME TOM AND DICK CONFESSES THE COMMISSION OF A HEINOUS CRIME AND ALSO IMPLICATES SOME RESPECTABLE PERSON OR SOME HIGHER OFFICIAL TO BE HIS MOTIVATOR OR ACCOMPLICE SHOULD THAT RESPECTABLE PERSON OR THE HIGHER OFFICER BE CONDEMNED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY IOTA OF COGENT EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM?
PLEASE COMMENT
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 12 January 2012
Legal system works this only and much faster elsewhere in the world.
Do you remember the recent case of IMF president who is also a candidate for future presidency of FRANCE, was arrested and kept in jail just on accusation of a maid servant which was proved false later.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 January 2012
There is no discrimination in law for any person who so ever higher post holder he may be. Law takes its own course though in practical shape, we may observe some ifs and buts but over all implementation of law is unbiased in India.
So far as this case is concerned, I have not stopped the querist to try for AB but the chances are lesser. I still firm on my earlier stand and there is no use to repeat my stand again and again.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 13 January 2012
I endorse the views of the experts.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 13 January 2012
Experts have perfectly opined,you are mistaken in several aspects.
dev kapoor
(Expert) 14 January 2012
1.In fact in NDPS cases a co-accused is equally liable as the main accused from whose possession the ND is recovered;
2.Never go for Anticipatory bail,as no-magistrate of Judge will grant this kind of bail;
3.In NDPS cases the custody u/s.167(2) is double i.e. if challan/charge sheet is not produced within 120 days or 180,the accused will be enlarged ob bail if application is filed immediately on the expiry of this period,as the case may be;
4.The important thing to be noted is whether ALPRAZOLAM come within the definition of a 'narcotic drug' or 'syco tropic substance'? In my opinion NOT.Then see punishment & whether the offence is triable by a Special Judge or a Magistrate.In latter case No Law of AB.The offence being of LESS GRAVITY & UR PERSON BEING CHARGED ONLY AS A CO_ACCUSED he could be bailed out.
5.In some cases courts have held substances like DIZAPAM etc are NOT ND of SS.This can also help.
6.Regarding Confession by Tom..& implicating any respectable person,suffice it to say that NDPS cases are totally on different footing as in this case BOTH the accused persons are arrested together travelling or staying in one room.This furnishes prim facie evidence of the culpability of your Co-accused also.
yogesh kumar solanki
(Expert) 15 January 2012
Bail it is the discretion power of court if you satisfied the court you can get bail.Bail provision is given in section 37 NDPS Act
