Cri. BA No.1609/2022
..1..
in Spl. LAC No.159/2022
MHCC020087542022
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 30-06-2022
: 30-06-2022
: 04-11-2022
: 4 months, 4 days
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUG AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1609 OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL L.A.C. NO.159 OF 2022
Pramod Kalicharan Sharma
Aged: 32 years, Occ: Labour,
R/at: Pahadgad Road, Anajmandi,
Dist. Murena, Madhya Pradesh.
)
)
)
) .. Applicant/Accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
)
( At the instance of Malwani police station )
Mumbai vide Spl. LAC No.159/2022 )
) .. Respondent/Prosecution
Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Shailesh Kharat, for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Mr. S.S. Panjwani, for the respondent/prosecution.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI V.G. RAGHUWANSHI (C.R.43)
DATE : 04/11/2022
ORAL ORDER
The applicant/accused Pramod Kalicharan Sharma prays
for releasing him on bail.
Cri. BA No.1609/2022
2.
..2..
in Spl. LAC No.159/2022
He submits that, he is permanent resident of address
mentioned in clause title. He is law abiding and peace loving citizen.
He was arrested on 3.04.2022 in a crime for offence punishable under
section 8(c) r/w section 21(c), 22(B) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
Presently he is in judicial custody.
3.
It is alleged by prosecution that, PC Ganesh Ashokrao Amte
lodged report that, on 23.04.2022 he and another officers were on
patrolling duty.
They saw applicant/accused and another persons
standing near Surbhi CHS in suspicious condition.
They were seen
exchanging some goods. When applicant/accused and another persons
saw a police, they kept carry bag in their pockets and were about to
leave that place. At that time police took them in custody.
Applicant/accused and another accused disclosed that, they had
Mephedrone (MD) and Double Tiger Heroin for sell. They were told
about search procedure as per section 50 of NDPS Act. After taking
search of Pramod Kalicharan Sharma he was found in possession of 5
gram Mephedrone (MD) and 335 gram Double Tiger Heroin. Search of
another accused Mohd. Ismail was also taken and he was found in
possession of 5 gram Mephedrone (MD).
Their statements were
recorded.
4.
Applicant/accused submits that, he is innocent. Contraband
was not seized as per procedure laid down under section 42 and 50 of
NDPS Act. Applicant/accused alleged that, provisions of section 42 of
NDPS Act were not followed.
5.
Applicant/accused further submits that, his detention will
amount to pre-trial punishment. Everything is recovered, nothing needs
Cri. BA No.1609/2022
..3..
to be seized from applicant/accused.
in Spl. LAC No.159/2022
Police did not record any
information and they did not forward information to their superiors.
There is violation of section 42 of NDPS Act in this case. He prayed for
releasing him on bail.
6.
Prosecution resisted this application by filing report of
Investigating Officer countersigned by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
on grounds mentioned therein.
7.
I have heard Ld. Counsels for both sides. It is contention of
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused that, there is delay in lodging report.
He pointed that, incident occurred at 12.10 am and offence is registered
at 03.30 am.
That means that is delay of 03.00 hours.
He also
submitted that, there is no strict compliance of section 42 and 50 of
NDPS Act. Section 43 of NDPS Act cannot be read in isolation it has to
be read with section 42 of NDPS Act only. He relied upon the order of
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Bail Application
No.2295/2021 dated 20.01.2022 between Sholadoye Samuel Joy Vs. The
State of Maharashtra.
On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that, there is proper compliance of section 43 of NDPS Act.
He submitted that, this is chance recovery, there was no prior
information therefore, question of reducing information into writing
and submitting it to superior before proceeding to conduct a raid would
not arise in this case. During arguments my attention was attracted
towards averments in the report to canvas that, section 50 of NDPS Act
was complied. He relied upon the judgments of the Constitution Bench
Cri. BA No.1609/2022
..4..
in Spl. LAC No.159/2022
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the ‘State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh,
1999 (6) SCC 159’ and ‘Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat’ .
8.
I have given thoughtful consideration to submissions of
both sides. In this case it is clear from facts of this case that this was a
chance recovery, there was no prior information to police officers and
therefore, there was no question of reducing information into writing.
Judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in matter of
Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.606/2004
dated 29.07.2009 is relevant. I do not agree with submission of Ld.
Counsel for applicant/accused that provisions of section 42 and 50 of
NDPS Act are not complied in this case. Applicant/accused was found in
possession of commercial quantity of contraband. Therefore, rigours of
section 37 of NDPS Act would be attracted in this case. Hence, this is
not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of applicant/accused.
Accordingly, I pass following order.
ORDER
1. Criminal Bail Application No.1609/2022 in Special L.A.C./C.R
No.159/2022, is rejected.
2. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
(Pronounced in open Court)
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY
GOVINDSINGH
GOVINDSINGH RAGHUWANSHI
RAGHUWANSHI
Date: 2022.11.16
15:48:53 +0530
Date : 04/11/2022.
Dictated on
Typed on
Signed on
: 04/11/2022
: 07/11/2022
: 11/11/2022
(V.G. Raghuwanshi)
N.D.P.S Special Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (CR.43)
Cri. BA No.1609/2022
..5..
in Spl. LAC No.159/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE
16.11.2022
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
03.47 p.m.
Sanjay Baliram Kaskar
(Stenographer Grade-I)
Name of the Judge
H.H.J. SHRI. V.G. RAGHUWANSHI
(C.R.No.43) NDPS Spl. Judge
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
04/11/2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
11/11/2022
Judgment/order uploaded on
16/11/2022