SUNIL VITHTHALBHAI BARMASE Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 21 of the National Investigation Act for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B of IPC, under Ss. 21(c), r/w 8(c), 25, 27(A) and 29, of the NDPS Act and under Ss. 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted on 12/8/2018, one FIR being C.R. No.-III/1/2018 was registered with ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad U/s. 21(c), 8(c), 24, 25 27(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused in the aforesaid FIR were to smuggling and distribution of 500 Kg. of illegal Narcotic Drugs (heroin) from Pakistan to Gujarat by sea route. It is submitted that during the investigation, investigating agency had implicated the present appellant as and accused and had charge sheeted as accused no. 8 and after arresting the persons involved in the offence, investigating agency had filed charge sheet before Special NDPS Court, Jam-Khambhalita, Gujarat. It is submitted that the appellant thereafter has preferred a regular bail application before the Special Judge, NIA Court, Ahmedabad being NIA Criminal Misc. Application No.54 of 2022. The said regular bail application filed by the appellant was objected by the NIA. Vide order dtd. 29/8/2022, the bail application has been rejected.

(3.) As against this, Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr.Kshitij Amin, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-NIA submitted that the appellant accused has committed offense under Ss. 120B of IPC, Ss. 21(c) read with Ss. 8(c), 25, 27(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Ss. 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, as such that falls into the ambit of Sec. 37 for its consideration. On the plain perusal of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act leaves no ambiguity of imprisonment of 10 years or more shall generally be not released on bail. That the appellant accused has to pass through the test of condition laid down in Sec. 37 besides the condition for granting bail that has been provided under the code of criminal procedure. Therefore it is in addition to limitation provided under Cr.PC. That the fact under the special statute clearly provides the mandate, as such negation of bail is a rule and its grant is an exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Sec. 37 (1).