Ravi Kumar Prajapati's plea for anticipatory bail rejected due to non-compliance with stringent NDPS Act conditions
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court, presided by Justice Jitendra Kumar, has denied anticipatory bail to Ravi Kumar Prajapati, involved in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The case pertains to the seizure of 3200 bottles of Eskuf Codeine Syrup, a cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, from a truck owned by Prajapati. The court emphasized the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which were not met, leading to the rejection of Prajapati's bail application.
The prosecution, based on a report from the Excise Sub-Inspector at Balthari Check-Post, alleged that the truck was detained with a substantial quantity of contraband without valid authorization. The driver, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, was arrested on the spot, and the case was registered under various sections of the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Prajapati's counsel argued that the petitioner was merely the truck owner and had no involvement with the contraband. He claimed non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure. However, the court ruled that such compliance is a factual question to be addressed during the trial and not a valid ground for anticipatory bail.
The court highlighted that the NDPS Act's provisions are additional to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, underscoring the special law's intent to regulate narcotics. It noted that even essential drugs like codeine-containing cough syrup are subject to strict control and regulation under the NDPS Act, especially when possessed in commercial quantities without authorization.
The court further stated that the conditions for anticipatory bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are cumulative, requiring proof that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offense while on bail. In Prajapati's case, these conditions were unmet, and the court could not conclude his non-involvement or that he wouldn't reoffend.
Citing various precedents, the court reinforced the principle that in NDPS cases, the denial of bail is the norm, with its grant being an exception. The judgment reflects the judiciary's strict stance on drug-related offenses, particularly when involving commercial quantities of controlled substances.
Bottom line:-
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act when commercial quantity of contraband is seized, and the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 8, 21, 22, 37, 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985; Sections 27(b)(2), 27(d), 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Ravi Kumar Prajapati @ Ravi Prajapati v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2929666
