Smt.Sayara Abdul Hussain v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Aug 2007
- Bench
- V C DAGA
Outcome
Bail granted
proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 8(c), 21, 27, 29
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Judgment
The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case Ansar Ahmed v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), of Ansar Ahmed v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Ansar Ahmed v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2005 (4) Crimes 598 (Del.) to contend that quantity of neutral substance or substances is not to be taken in considering whether a small quantity or a commercial quantity of the narcotic or psychotropic substance is recovered. Only the actual content by weight of the narcotic drug of the psychotropic substance (as the case may be) is relevant for determining whether it would constitute "small quantity" or "commercial quantity". The Delhi High Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ouseph v. Ouseph v. Ouseph v. State of Kerala, State of Kerala, (2004) 4 SCC 446; wherein the total State of Kerala, quantity which was assessed was not taken into account but the prohibited contents therein were taken into consideration to reach to the conclusion as to whether the prohibited substance was having commercial or a small quantity. Relying on these two judgments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that section 27 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable. He further contends that the applicant is in jail since 24th October, 2006 i.e. more than six months. - 4 -
Per contra, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State, strongly opposed for grant of bail. He relied upon the order of learned single Judge dated 22nd August, 2005 passed in Criminal Application No.4185/2005 to contend that entire substance is required to be taken into account for determination whether it is "commercial quantity" or "small quantity".
Without going to the rival contentions of the issue raised, at this stage, since the trial is pending and considering the weight of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the applicant is already behind bar for more than six months, I am inclined to grant bail in favour of the applicant subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant, arrested in connection with C.R.No.319/2006 registered with Anti Narcotic Cell, C.B. C.I.D., Mumbai shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two local sureties to make up the said amount. (b) The applicant shall report to the Anti - 5 - Narcotic Cell, C.B. C.I.D., Mumbai twice a week, i.e. on every Monday and Friday between
Operative part
3.00 to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (c) The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the investigating officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of trial without prior intimation to the investigating officer. (d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (e) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigating agency for disposal of the case. It is needless to mention that breach of any of the conditions by the applicant - 6 - shall result in cancellation of bail. (f) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as finding or expression on merits of the case at the time of trial.
Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 8(c), 21, 27, 29.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 07 Aug 2007. The bench was V C DAGA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.