Court finds no prima facie evidence of conspiracy or abetment against the applicants, allowing their release on bail.
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to Sunny Vinod Jain and Balakrishnan Balram Kurup, organizers of a music concert, in connection with a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The case involved allegations of drug distribution at a concert that led to the tragic deaths of two attendees and the severe injury of another.
The bail applications were filed after the applicants were arrested following an FIR lodged with the Vanrai Police Station, Mumbai. The allegations stemmed from a concert held at the NESCO Exhibition Centre, where drugs were allegedly distributed, resulting in the deaths of Bismat Singh and Shreya Rai, while Sheetal Salvi sustained serious injuries.
Justice Shyam C. Chandak, while granting bail, observed that there was a prima facie absence of sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy or abetment by the applicants with drug peddlers. Importantly, there was no recovery of contraband from the applicants, which played a crucial role in the decision to grant bail.
The court noted that the applicants, who were employed as Vice President and Senior Manager of NESCO, were involved in the event in a representative capacity and had no direct or indirect connection with the alleged drug peddlers. The learned judge emphasized the absence of any criminal antecedents on the part of the applicants, further strengthening their case for bail.
The prosecution had argued against the bail, citing the commercial quantity of drugs involved and asserting that the applicants had facilitated the entry of drug peddlers. However, the court found the claims unsubstantiated, especially as the evidence presented was considered insufficient to suggest any collusion or abetment by the applicants.
In granting bail, the court imposed conditions requiring the applicants to mark their attendance at the police station monthly, refrain from tampering with evidence, and ensure regular court attendance. The court clarified that the observations made in the bail order should not influence the trial proceedings.
The decision underscores the importance of robust evidence in cases involving serious allegations under the NDPS Act. The ruling also highlights the court's cautious approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the need for thorough investigation in drug-related cases.
Bottom Line:
Grant of bail to accused under NDPS Act, 1985 and Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Prima facie absence of sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or abetment by the applicants with drug peddlers - No recovery of contraband from the applicants - Bar of Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act not attracted.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 37, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 105, 123, 125, 125(b), 223(b), 3(5), Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65
Sunny Vinod Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2923135
