Young teenagers, who are often under parental supervision, are able to acquire the illegal substance. Unquestionably, the medicine is made available through a well-managed supply chain, upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, in the case of Satish Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
(Cr.MP(M) No. 299 of 2020).
Brief facts of the case:
142 grammes of heroin were retrieved and confiscated from a vehicle inhabited by the petitioners. Petitioner Dilbar Khan was behind the wheel while petitioner Rajinder Sharma was the other passenger. The police had previous knowledge of the crime. Complying with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, the contraband was subsequently found at around 10.30 p.m. at Bashalti, close to Madhod Kenchi, under the jurisdiction of the Sunni Police Station.
According to confidential intelligence acquired by the authorities, two cars transporting contraband were nearing Sunni. The information was determined to be accurate, and both of the aforementioned cars were captured. As shown above, while nothing incriminating was retrieved from one car, 142 grammes of heroin were seized from the other vehicle.
All of the passengers in both cars, according to the police, had imported heroin from Delhi to sell to clients in Sunni regions. The petitioners were detained on March 10, 2002. According to reports, the enquiry is concluded and a challan is in the process of being filed with the court.
In this case, petitioners have petitioned the High Court for bail on the basis that they are innocent and have been wrongfully accused. Their co-accused Mohit and Parvez were granted bail by the Special Judge (CBI) in Shimla on February 20, 2002. The petitioners are natives of Himachal Pradesh and come from reputable families. They are rooted in the community, and there is little concern that they would evade punishment or depart the scene of the crime. The petitioners have agreed not to alter the prosecution’s evidence.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the amount of contraband found in this instance is intermediate, or less than commercial quantities. Petitioners have no history of involvement in NDPS Act violations. Their extended imprisonment will serve no use.
After hearing the argument, the court determined that the amount of contraband in this case is intermediate, and consequently Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply. It may not be sufficient for bail to be granted simply because the amount of contraband seized is smaller than the commercial quantity.
In addition, the court concluded that the recovery of 142 grammes of heroin from the petitioners might clearly be associated with the aforementioned organised crime. 142 grammes of heroin cannot be believed to be in the petitioners’ possession for personal use. In light of the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to bail. The petitioners’ rights must be evaluated against the wider public interest.
In light of the considerable amount of heroin discovered from the petitioners, the court determined that it would not be unreasonable to presume that the petitioners were transporting the contraband for sale to the customers, which include a number of teenagers, young students, etc. The absence of any prior case brought against the petitioners under the NDPS Act does not necessarily indicate that they are first-time offenders under the NDPS Act. The way in which the petitioners’ actions were found throughout the enquiry is conclusive evidence of their criminal intent.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI