NDPS Act | Court Need Not Look At Breach Of Mandatory Provisions Of Statute While Deciding Bail Plea: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court observed that while considering the bail plea of an accused booked under NDPS Act, the concerned court need not look into violation of mandatory provisions of the Act. In doing so it underscored that at the stage of considering bail, only FIR, seizure memo and witness statements recorded by police are before the court based on which a prima facie finding cannot be given. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan in his order said:“… this Court is of the considered opinion that violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act need not be looked into by the bail court, while considering a bail application of an accused involved in the NDPS Act. At the stage of the bail, the court only has the FIR, seizure mehazar and statement of the witnesses recorded by the police. Therefore, there cannot be any prima facie finding based on these records at the stage of bail. Unless the entire case is known, the contention regarding the legality or validity of the action taken by the Detecting Officers, while conducting the search need not be examined in depth by the bail court.”The court added that even in a case where the final report is filed, the Court should not consider the violation of statutory provision as any prima facie finding on it will prejudice the interest of the accused or the prosecution.The court further said that when a lawyer makes contentions in bail applications, which may affect his client's interest in the trial, he should not take such contentions thinking his client behind him. In the present case the court in its order observed that it had repeatedly requested the lawyer not to force the court to decide the points raised by him observing that, it will prejudice the interest of his client; however the lawyer insisted on an order on merits."In such a situation, there is no other way except to decide the point raised by the lawyer on merit. But I cannot ignore the face of the client behind him. Therefore, I make it clear that the observation and finding in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application, and the petitioner is free to raise all these contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage," it said. The petitioner was involved in a case where allegedly 83.83 kgs of ganja were recovered from a pick-up van. As per the case, the vehicle was stopped by a police party conducting vehicle checking. However, on seeing the police, 2 persons travelling in the pick-up van ran away. At this point, police questioned the drivers and other passengers in the vehicle. A Sub-Inspector inspected the vehicle and saw travel bags covered with plastic sheets. On removing plastic sheets, a severe smell of ganja came from the bags. As per the police officer, the bag was opened in front of witnesses and the ganja was found inside them. The driver and 2 passengers were arrested. Their body was searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. It was alleged that the accused committed offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) (possessing commercial quantity of cannabis) of the NDPS Act. The instant bail application is submitted by the 5th accused who was arrested later.The petitioner argued that the seizure of contraband was illegal as the mandatory provisions under Sections 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not followed. Section 42 deals with the procedure to be followed to conduct search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. Section 50 elaborates the condition under which a person can be searched.The petitioner alleged that as per the FIR, the detecting officer noticed the smell of ganja. Therefore, he argued that before opening the bag, he should have followed the procedure under Section 42 of the Act. The petitioner submitted that the detecting officer should have taken down that information in writing, sent a copy thereof to his immediate superior officer. He also argued that the Detecting Officer could not have conducted the search between sunset and sunrise without recording his grounds for belief that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording an opportunity for concealment of evidence or escape of an offender.The Public Prosecutor opposed these arguments by saying that this was a chance recovery and therefore compliance with Section 50 and 42 was not required.The Court initially hesitated into looking whether there was compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act. The Court said that the contention can be taken up before the trial court at appropriate stage. However, on the petitioner's insistence, the court decided to consider the same."This Court conveyed this proposition to the counsel for the petitioner. But the counsel for the petitioner insists for a consideration of the above contention at the bail stage itself. When a counsel insists on considering a point in a bail application, this Court is bound to consider the same in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala," it said....

NDPS Act | Court Need Not Look At Breach Of Mandatory Provisions Of Statute While Deciding Bail Plea: Kerala HC

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags