The document details a legal case in the High Court of Gauhati involving Amal Das, who sought pre-arrest bail related to a seizure of 44,160 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The court found significant discrepancies in the documentation related to the consignment, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the claims made by the petitioner. Ultimately, the court ordered further investigation into the case due to the serious nature of the allegations and the quantity of contraband involved.
The document details a legal case in the High Court of Gauhati involving Amal Das, who sought pre-arrest bail related to a seizure of 44,160 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The court found significant discrepancies in the documentation related to the consignment, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the claims made by the petitioner. Ultimately, the court ordered further investigation into the case due to the serious nature of the allegations and the quantity of contraband involved.
The document details a legal case in the High Court of Gauhati involving Amal Das, who sought pre-arrest bail related to a seizure of 44,160 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The court found significant discrepancies in the documentation related to the consignment, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the claims made by the petitioner. Ultimately, the court ordered further investigation into the case due to the serious nature of the allegations and the quantity of contraband involved.
The document details a legal case in the High Court of Gauhati involving Amal Das, who sought pre-arrest bail related to a seizure of 44,160 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The court found significant discrepancies in the documentation related to the consignment, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the claims made by the petitioner. Ultimately, the court ordered further investigation into the case due to the serious nature of the allegations and the quantity of contraband involved.
12. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned APP, Assam that offences under the NDPS Act are part of an organized crime wherein difference roles are played by different accused persons. Therefore, recovery or seizure cannot be held to be a sine qua non for the arrest/detention or even for conviction if there are other convincing and corroborating materials which in the present case are abundantly available. 13. This Court is of the view that it is a settled position of law that in a case involving the NDPS Act various factors are to be taken into consideration like the quantity of the contraband, nature of the substance, nature of involvement etc. In the present case, the contraband is a commercial quantity and the substance is chemically manufactured drug. Moreover, Section 37 of the NDPS Act lays down that before granting a bail, the relevant factors are that the Court should come to a satisfaction that prima facie the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and also the petitioner has to satisfy the Court that in case bail is granted, he is not likely to commit further offence. The aforesaid two factors do not seem to be fulfilled in the present case. 14. In that view of the matter and also taking into consideration the very object of the enactment, namely to curb the menace of drugs and its ill effects on the society which has the propensity to destroy the generation as a whole, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. Consequently, the interim protection granted, vide order dated 07.07.2021 stands cancelled. 15. The IO of the case is accordingly directed to make all efforts to investigate the case so that the persons involved in the heinous offence involved in the NDPS Act can be put to book, strictly in accordance with law. 16. It is however clarified that the observation made are tentative in nature and shall not cause prejudice to either of the parties in the trial. ——— † Principal Bench at Guwahati
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
