Ashhad Sajid Khan, Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU, New Delhi
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
Judgement delivered by
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Name of the Parties
“MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAIN V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)”
Sections Involved
1. NDPS Act:
· Sec. 20: “Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis”[1].
· Sec. 25: “Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence”[2].
· Sec. 29: “Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy”[3].
· Sec. 37: “This section deals with bail provisions and restrictions under the NDPS Act”[4].
2. IPC:
· Sec. 125B: “This section pertains to the punishment for offenses related to the NDPS Act”[5].
3. CrPC:
· Sec 436A: “Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained”[6].
· Sec. 439: “This section deals with the powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail”[7].
· Sec. 482: “This section relates to the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice”[8].
Facts
1. According to the prosecution, a raid was conducted on 28.09.2015, based on confidential intelligence that the police had obtained, and four indicted people—Sharif Khan, Nitesh Ekka, Virender Shakiyar/Sakayabar @ Deepak and Sanjay Chauhan—who were allegedly has 180 kilograms of marijuana with them —were apprehended. In order to identify co-accused individuals, Nitesh Ekka, the accused, was brought to Chhattisgarh during the course of the investigation.
2. At this instance, the current appellant Mohd. Muslim was taken into custody in the night in between 03/04.10.2015. Three more co-accused were additionally detained as a result of a further investigation. According to the prosecution, Virender Singh @ Beerey was going to purchase marijuana and transfer the money to the bank accounts of Shantilal Tigga @Guddu, Mohd. Muslim and Nitesh Ekka, as well as to their friends and families. The chargesheet was filed in accordance with Sections 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act and Sec. 125B of the IPC, and on July 5, 2016, the other co-accused and the appellant were charged. Additionally, two more chargesheets were submitted in accordance with the pleadings.
3. Due to the magnitude of the claimed offences, the harshness of the punishment, and the appellant's alleged role, the district court refused to release the appellant. It was noted that he had kept in touch often with his co-accused throughout the commission of the crime and that important witnesses had not yet been questioned.
4. The present appellant made a High Court appearance. The primary defendant, Virender Singh @ Beerey, often moved money from his bank account to the appellant's bank account, as shown by the phone logs and the challenged judgement and the current defendant was assumed to communicate frequently with the other co-defendants. During the trial, one of the witnesses allegedly stated that the current appellant gave him Rs. 50,000. The application for normal bail was denied under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because there was substantial evidence against him and no reason to rely on Section 37 of the NDPS Act's exclusions, and the trial court was instructed to move quickly and reach a decision within six months.
Comments