VIMAL KUMAR BAHI Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGNECE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This third petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of interim bail by the appellant on the ground of illness of his mother. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 21/29 of the NDPS Act. He was found in conscious possession of 16.89 gms of Heroin with purity percentage of 71%. He was sentenced to undergo 16 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 Lac. The record shows that the appellant was also convicted by American Court for the similar offence and he remained there in jail for 31 months. There was another case pending against him about a conspiracy to smuggle Hashish from Afganistan to Moscow and Holland. This case was pending in Mumbai and NCB was a complainant.

(2.) The appellant/applicant had earlier applied for interim bail on the ground of illness of his mother. This Court vide order dated 24th May, 2006 had allowed the interim bail about period of 6 weeks to him on this ground. Even in the earlier bail application he had stated the same ailment of his mother. The present ground taken by the applicant is that his mother was shown to the local hospital and thereafter she was advised to show to some higher hospital and therefore she is now to be treated at AIIMS. I consider that since the applicant has been granted incarceration for 16 years his mother has to take care of herself for all these years and on the ground of illness of his mother it would not be appropriate to release the applicant even on interim bail considering his past.

(3.) The applicant seems to be a habitual drug paddler who was not deterred from indulging into this business of narcotic drugs despite his incarceration in USA and despite a case in Mumbai. The quantity of heroin recovered from the appellant shows the level at which the appellant was involved in dealing in the drugs. Looking into the history of the appellant, I consider that if the appellant is released even temporarily, there is probability that he will continue his nefarious activity of trafficking and dealing with the drugs clandestinely putting the whole society in jeopardy. Looking into the menace of narcotic drugs flooding the market and finding their way even to young school children, I consider the Court should not show mercy to such appellant.