Gauhati High Court
Amrit Yadav vs The Union Of India on 15 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010224752022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/3264/2022
AMRIT YADAV
S/O RUPLAL YADAV
R/O SEREGARA BALUMATH
PALAMU
DIST.LATCHAR
JHARKAND
PIN CODE- 829202
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE PP
NCB
------------
Advocate for : MR S N SARMA SENIOR ADVOCATE Advocate for : SC NCB appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN 15.12.2022 Heard Mr. B. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. S.C. Kayel, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of Page No.# 2/5 India/Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB).
2. This application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is preferred by applicant- Shri Amrit Yadav, who has been apprehending arrest in connection with NCB Crime No. 15/2022, dated 31.01.2022, under sections- 08(c)/21(c)/24/29 of the NDPS Act, for grant of pre-arrest bail.
3. The said case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by S.I. Rahul Doley of Basistha Police Station on 31.01.2022, to the effect that on the same day, acting on a tip off, he has intercepted one Truck, bearing Registration No. JH-19 A 6523, near Basistha Chariali, Guwahati and during checking of the vehicle he found 4.500 kg of suspected Brown Sugar/Heroin and also apprehended driver and handyman of the Truck, namely- Md. Idomei and Md. Nawaz Khan. Upon the said FIR Basistha P.S. Case No. 151/2022, under sections 21(c)/24/29 of the NDPS Act, has been registered. But, later on, the case has been transferred to NCB, upon which NCB Crime No. 15/2022, has been registered and investigation is being carried out.
4. Mr. B. Chaudhury, the learned counsel for the applicant - Amrit Yadav, submits that the applicant is the registered owner of the Truck which has been seized here in this case and he has received notice from the NCB on 16.06.2022, to appear before it on 12.07.22, in connection with the said case and he has apprehension that he may be arrested in the said case, in the event of his appearance. Mr. Chaudhury further submits that the applicant has the transport business and running the same since 2013, and his Truck, bearing registration No. JH-19 A 6523, has national permit and used to travel throughout the country, and during the relevant time it was returning Page No.# 3/5 from Manipur and the driver and the handyman, without his knowledge, carried contraband substance in the Truck, and that he is no way involved with the offence and that he is a local person and he has no criminal antecedent and he is ready to co-operate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, Mr. S.C. Kayel, learned Standing Counsel for the NCB has submitted one status report before this court and vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the applicant has criminal antecedent and a case, being Balumath Cr. No. 49/2022, dated 21.03.2022, u/s 147/148/149/341/342/323/324/ 307/427/504/506 IPC is pending against him and that he is not a local person and that he has not been co-operating with the investigation as he has not been appearing before the investigating agency pursuant to two notices issued to him under section 67 NDPS Act, and that the contraband substance, recovered from the Truck owned by him, is of commercial quantity, and that the applicant has failed to satisfy the two conditions of section 37 of the NDPS Act and his custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the truth, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition.
6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the status report submitted by Mr. Kayel learned Standing Counsel for the NCB.
7. It is not in dispute that the contraband substance, so recovered from the Truck of the applicant, is of commercial quantity. And as such Page No.# 4/5 the embargo under section 37 of the NDPS Act will be applicable herein this case. In the case of Satpal Singh vs. The State Of Punjab, reported in Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with this issue as under:-
"15. Be that as it may, the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the High Court does not show that there is any reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The quantity is reportedly commercial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not have and should not have passed the order under Sections 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction in case the Court was otherwise inclined to grant the bail. Such a satisfaction having not being entered, the order dated 21.09.2017 is only to be set aside and we do so."
8. Here in this case, from the documents placed on record and also from the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, this court is unable to derived its satisfaction in respect of the two conditions under sections 37 of the NDPS Act, which are required to be satisfied to avail the privilege of pre-arrest bail or regular bail. Besides, the applicant has criminal antecedent and that a case being Balumath Cr. No. 49/2022, dated 21.03.2022, u/s147/148/149/341/342/323/324/ 307/427/504/506 IPC is pending against him, and further, it appears that that he hails from Jharkhand and is not a local person as claimed.
9. In view of the above, and also in view of the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and in view of enormity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be extended to the applicant. His custodial interrogation is very much necessary in the interest of investigation.
Page No.# 5/5
10. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant