J. KANNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking enlargement on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and he is accused No.1 in the case No.NCB F.No.48/2019/BZU for the offence punishable under Section 8 r/w Sections 22, 28, 29 and 32B(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act, 1985' for short). NCB officials while intercepting a Toyota Corrolla Car baring registration No.KA-03-MD-7250, which was stated to have been driven by one Shivaraj Urs from Rajarajeshwari Nagar, when the vehicle was near Ananda Rao Circle, Majestic, at that time, scuffling took among Shivaraj Urs, Virendra Singh and members of the NCB Team. At that juncture, red trolley bag containing Ketamine drugs was taken away by the petitioner and he could not flee. Thus he was apprehended and recovered 26.75 kgs of Ketamine. In other words, petitioner was acting as a carrier for the seized Ketamine material, which was transporting in collusion of accused Nos.2 and 3. Thus, petitioner has presented this petition seeking enlargement on bail. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed on 25.09.2019. It is also contended that petitioner is not involved in any other offences.

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the score that Section 37 of the Act, 1985 provides for consideration of bail application only on two counts namely, for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless - the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and further reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that having regard to the voluntary statement under Section 67 of the Act, 1985 by the petitioner before the NCB Authority to the extent that carrying the aforesaid Ketamine material was illegally in possession of petitioner, which suffice to believe that petitioner is prima- facie guilty of such offence and further contended that petitioner is likely to commit further offence while he is on bail.