BENCH:
J. H. Bhatia
CASE TITLE:
Stephan Muellar Vs State Of Maharashta
DATE OF ORDER:
23RD JUNE, 2010
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE J.H. BHATIA
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: STEPHAN MUELLAR
RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTA
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
SUBJECT
There is no doubt that the petitioner is charged with offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27 of the NDPS Act, and both are punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both. He was discovered in possession of a small amount of Ganja and Charas.
BRIEF FACTS
- On 04.03.2007 Police Inspector Sanjay Pawar got information that 300-400 youngsters were enjoying a rave party and when the police raided the place few people got arrested.
- The petitioner was found with Ganja (amount not mentioned) and 15 grams of Charas.
- After investigation, a chargesheet was filed by the police under the different provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 against 15 people.
- After discharging 8 accused, the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act, Pune, ordered to charges against different accused.
- The petitioner was granted bail on 23.03.2007 and he was charged under NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act (as the petitioner is a citizen and resident of Germany).
- The petitioner filed an application with the learned Special Judge on August 27, 2007, requesting authorization to travel overseas and the return of his passport on the grounds that his mother was extremely ill and hospitalised, and he wished to see her in Germany. The petitioner is a German citizen and resident.
- The application was denied by the learned Special Judge in an order dated 1.9.2009, primarily on the grounds that the petitioner is a foreigner and that if he is released on bail, he may not return, and that the limitations for grant of bail under Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the current Writ Petition, the order is being challenged.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
The petitioner's learned Counsel stated before the Court that if the trial can be completed in three months or less, the petitioner will not travel abroad; however, if the trial will take longer, the petitioner will need to travel abroad, particularly to Germany, where he is a citizen and resident. After accepting directions, the learned APP states that the trial has not yet begun, that the prosecution has named up to 60 witnesses, and that at least 20 to 25 witnesses may be called to testify. Given the number of witnesses who must be questioned and the case's current status before the Court, it will be not be possible for the court to finish the matter within 3 months.
CONCLUSION
- The Petition has been granted. The quashed and set aside orders requiring the petitioner to deposit his passport with the Court and not to travel abroad without the Court's permission, as well as the order denying the petitioner permission to travel abroad, are accordingly quashed and set aside.
- However, in light of the petitioner's skilled Counsel's declaration, if the trial begins and ends within three months, the petitioner will not be able to travel overseas during that time since his presence will be required for the purposes of the trial.
- However, if the trial does not conclude within three months of this date, the petitioner is free to depart overseas, subject to a deposit of Rs.50,000/- as security for his return and attendance at the Court when the case is scheduled for trial.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
