LexCUSTOMS, NEW DELHI versus AHMADALIEVA NODIRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI v. AHMADALIEV A NODIRA MARCH 11, 2004 [S. RAJENDRA BABU, ARIJIT PASAY AT AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985; Ss. 2 (xxiii), 8, 37, 67 and item No. 43 of the Schedule to the Act: Seizure of large quantity of Diazepam Tablets allegedly a psychotropic substance-Arrest of accused-Bail-Rejected by Special Court-Allowed by High Court holding that no definite material placed by the Revenue which conforms description of the recovered tablets to the psychotropic substance, possession of which is prohibited-On appeal, Held: Chemical test Report in D respect of recovered tablets brought to the notice of High Court-Before granting bail, the Court has to satisfy itself whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence-High Court not only overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 of the Act but also did not take note of the confessional statement of the accused-It could not reasonably be believed that the accused was not guilty of the offence alleged E against him-Hence not entitled to bail-'-Order granting bail set aside. Words and Phrases: ''reasonable grounds "-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. t Respondent-accused, a foreign national, was found carrying a large F quantity of 'Diazepam' tablets, a psychotropic substance, possession of which was prohibited under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. Customs authorities seized the tablets and arrested her. Special Court rejected her bail application. However, High Court granted her bail holding· that no definite material was placed by the Revenue G Department to show that the tablets recovered conforms to the description of the prohibited chemical, a psychotropic substance as mentioned in item No. 43 of the Schedule to the Act. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. H It was contended by the Revenue that the seized tablets of Diazepam 1092 ,_ - ;l_- -- - -- ..... CUSTOMS. NEW DELHI v. AHMADALIEVA NOD IRA ] 093 conforms to the description of the prohibited psychotropic substance; and A that the evidentiary value of the laboratory report in respect of the seized tablets was totally overlooked by the High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when B the question of granting bail 11rises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the public prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far as the present accused-respondent is concerned, are - the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are C cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 of the Act. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The report of the Central Revenue D Control Laboratory was brought to the notice of the High Court, which was lightly brushed aside without any justifiable reason. (1096-A-FJ 1.2. It does not appear to be a case where it could be reasonably I believed that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence. Hence, the impugned order granting bail is set aside and the bail granted is E cancelled. However, it is made clear that no final opinion on the merit of the case has been expressed in this Judgment, and whatever has been stated is the background of Section 37 of the Act for the purpose of bail. (1096-G-H; 1097-AJ Union of India v. Thamisharasi and Ors., JT (1995) 4 SC 253, relied F on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.2000 of the Delhi High Court G in Cr!. M. No. 2006 of 2000. K.K. Sood, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok Bhan and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R. A ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. B Grant of bail to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") by a learned Single Judge, of the Delhi High Court is questioned by the Customs authorities who had purportedly recovered huge quantity of "Diazep
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.