High Court of Delhi

Madan Lama Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

MANU/DE/1651/2021

16.08.2021

Narcotics

While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment

Present is a petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for grant of regular bail in Sessions Case registered at Narcotics Control Bureau for offences under Sections 8, 20(b) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act").

In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, the Supreme Court has held that, grant of bail though being a discretionary order -- but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. The grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

The Petitioner being a citizen of Nepal has no roots in society and can be considered a potential flight-risk. Thus he satisfies the factor that there exists the danger of him absconding or fleeing from justice, if released on bail. Furthermore, if the Petitioner is released on bail, it cannot be ruled out that he will not indulge in such activities again. The Petitioner has indulged in offences under the NDPS Act and the same cannot be equated with the offences under the IPC or other offences. The harmful effects of drugs on an individual and on the society have been researched extensively and are well known. The purpose of enacting the NDPS Act was to curb this menace. This purpose must be kept in mind while considering the grant of bail in matter pertaining to the NDPS Act.

The Petitioner is also alleged to have committed an offence which is punishable up to ten years of imprisonment. Furthermore, the case herein is different from the case of Haresh Rawal, who was granted bail vide order as charges have are yet to be framed in the instant case and the chances of the Petitioner jumping bail cannot be ruled out as he is not the resident of India. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, present Court does not feel that this is a fit case for grant of bail. The application is dismissed.

Tags : Bail Rejection Legality

Share :