Criminal Appln. No. 3179 of 1995. Case: Gharban Ali Pour Azadi Shekhar Sareoi Vs Intelligence Officer Air Intelligence Unit N. I. P. T. Sahar Bombay. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appln. No. 3179 of 1995
CounselFor Petitioner: S. M. Shah with Subhash Jha, Advs. and For Respondents: J. C. Satpute, R. L. Patil, A. P. P., Advs.
JudgesR. G. Vaidyanatha, J.
IssueNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) - Section 50; Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Sections 439, 57; Constitution of India - Article 22
Citation1996 CriLJ 2420
Judgement DateFebruary 15, 1996
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

  1. This is a petition for bail. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent has opposed the application and has filed an affidavit in reply. I have heard both the sides.

  2. The petitioner is one of the accused in N. D. P. S. Special Case No. 2 of 1995 in the Court of Special Judge for N. D. P. S. Cases, Bombay. He had moved an application for bail which was rejected by the learned Special Judge. Hence he has approached this Court for bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C.

  3. The prosecution case is that on the midnight of 2nd/3rd October, 1994, the petitioner who was going to board Singapore Airlines flight, on suspicion, was stopped by officers of Air Intelligence Unit of Customs at Sahar Airport. The petitioner was found in possession of a briefcase. The petitioner was brought to the office of the Customs Officer on suspicion. He was questioned whether he was in possession of any foreign currency or any narcotic drugs. The petitioner replied in the negative. Then on suspicion, the concerned officer searched the briefcase which was found to contain 2,400 gms. of opium which had been concealed in the bottom of the briefcase. The same was seized under panchanama. On 4th October, 1994, the petitioner was formally arrested by the Customs Officer and later in the day he was sent to the learned Magistrate with a remand application.

  4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the mandatory provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act are violated, and therefore, the accused is entitled to bail. It was also submitted that there is defect in the investigation and on this ground also the petitioner is entitled to bail. Then it was further submitted that the petitioner has not been produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours from the time of his arrest as per the statutory provision in Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner's custody was illegal and on this ground also he is entitled to bail. Mr. Satpute, the learned Counsel for the Customs, refuted all these allegations and contended that no case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner.

  5. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out any ground for grant of bail in this case?

  6. As far as violation of mandatory provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted only about violation of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. That Section provides that in the case of a search of a person, he must be given an...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT