JOHNN TUCHLER Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts reveal that the Superintendent of customs, Air Intelligence Unit, Bangalore, received credible information that the a parsons including the Petitioner are drug carriers, currently in Delhi, would travel to Bangalore and then proceed to United Kingdom along with the suitcases each containing 50 Kgs of Hashish it was also informed that the Hashish can ha seized from the drug carriers by checking luggage thoroughly. It is in pursuance of this information, that the customs authorities with the assistance of the witnesses and other staff want to the international Air Port, Bangalore, on 01.11.2009 at about 4 p.m., and intercepted the Petitioner, checked his bag and as it did not contain any narcotic drug, they secured the luggage receipt and one bag was already shifted for loading in the plane and therefore, they secured the other bag and after search, they found Hashish in the bottom of the said bag and after weighing the a awe, it found to the 14.51 Kgs of narcotic drug and it was tested with the help of Narcotics Testing Kit and it gave a positive result that the matarial was Hashish, which is a Narcotic drug banned under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, 1965. It is thereafter that a haphazard vas drawn on the same day in between 4-7 p.m., the statements of the witnesses vary recorded and after completion of enquiry, the Petitioner was arrested by the authorities for contravention of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and it is in these circumstances, that the present petition has been filed seeking bail having been arrested for the above said crime.

(2.) It is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner vas arrested by the authorities at about 4 p.m., on 01.11.2009 and in his liberty vas curtailed by restraining him from moving elsewhere and he having been produced before the Magistrate on 03.11.2009 at about 4.25 p.m., the non-production of the Petitioner before the court within 24 hours contravenes Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the circumstances, it is his submission that the Petitioner is entitled to the bail sought for.

(3.) At the same time, learned Counsel far the Respondents submits that the arrest of the Petitioner is not on 01.11.2009, but ha was arrested at about 2 p.m., on 02.11.2009 and his production before the Court was initially done toy mistake before the Special Judge for the NDPS Cases and as the Special Judge directed them to produce the Petitioner before the Magistrate, the Petitioner was to be taken to Devanahalli and was produced at about 4.25 p.m. on 03.11.09. In these circumstances, it is his contention that excluding the time taken for the journey, the Petitioner has bean produced before the magistrate within 24 hours and therefore the Petitioner cannot claim bail on this ground.