Poppy Straw Worth ₹16.6 Lakh – Commercial – Bail Denied: GUJARAT HC
D.D: 01-07-2022
The Gujarat High Court has denied bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to a 66-year-old man from whose property Rs. 16.6 lakh worth of contraband (Poppy Straw) was seized.
Justice SH Vora ruled that Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies to the case, despite the fact that the senior citizen was not present at the scene of the crime or in the immediate vicinity, because he was the property owner.
Section 25 outlines the penalties for allowing premises, etc., to be used to commit an offence. The court also considered Section 37 of the Act, which specifies bail restrictions when the contraband recovered is of commercial quantity. The applicant’s property was seized with 69 bags of Poppy Straw weighing 1,371.72 kg.
The FIR associated with this application was filed for violations of Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The FIR was filed in 2020 after police received information that multiple individuals were transferring alcohol from one truck to another in an abandoned Essar Company gas station. The police discovered several vehicles, including a truck, and a number of individuals transporting goods. Later, it was discovered that the goods being transferred were not alcohol, but rather poppy straw.
The Applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and that he was not located near the scene of the crime. He was not in possession of the illegal substance, nor had he instigated or participated in illegal activities, either intentionally or by omission. Moreover, his co-accused was granted bail, and given that he was 66 years old, he was entitled to bail under the law articulated in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI.
Contrariwise, the APP opposed the bail application on the grounds that the Applicant and the other defendants were his relatives and were in constant contact. The Applicant, as one of the landowners, had permitted the property to be used for the commission of an offence. Thus, Sections 25 and 37 of the Act applied.
Invoking Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which addresses the use of premises in the commission of crimes, Justice Vora stated: “It is pertinent to note that the gasoline pump dealership agreement had already expired and that the applicant’s land was being used for the commission of NDPS Act violations while massive poppy cultivation was taking place. In light of the above-mentioned contraband substance seizure and the provisions of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, it is not appropriate to release the applicant on bail on account of his age or in favour of the two co-accused.”
NARUGHAR SONGHAR GOSWAMI
v/s
STATE OF GUJARAT
