The Bombay High Court granted bail to an NDPS Act accused due to reduced seized Charas weight in police custody.
The prosecution asserted that the seized Charas originally weighed 1 kg and 10 grams, but during inventory with the magistrate, it was recorded as only 1 kg.
Justice MS Karnik acknowledged the prosecution's explanation that the seized Charas had dried over time. Although it initially weighed 1 kg and 10 grams, the inventory showed a different weight due to the Charas drying out 59 days after seizure. This accounted for the change in weight from the time of seizure.
The court determined that the Charas seized from Nayak, weighing 1 kg during inventory before the Magistrate, was categorized as an intermediate quantity. Therefore, the stringent bail conditions outlined in Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.
The accused, Sunil Shishupal Nayak, is charged with offenses under sections 8(c), 20(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act
The prosecution claimed that Nayak and another person were discovered with Charas during an Anti Narcotic Cell patrol. The second accused was found with 1 kg and 15 grams of Charas. The prosecution contended that both individuals were individually and jointly in possession of a total of 2 kg and 25 grams of Charas, constituting a commercial quantity.
The contraband confiscated from Nayak initially weighed 1 kg and 10 grams during the arrest but decreased to 1 kg when samples were taken before the Magistrate 59 days later, in accordance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The prosecution emphasized that the weight at the time of seizure should be the determining factor rather than the weight recorded before the Magistrate.
APP PH Gaikwad, representing the State, argued that the 59-day delay in complying with section 52A was due to factors beyond the police's control, such as a high volume of seizures, and this delay should not negatively affect the prosecution's case.
The court noted that, prima facie, there was no evidence suggesting collusion between the two accused, except for being found together. In the interest of the accused's personal liberty, the court opted to take into account the weight recorded during the inventory before the Magistrate, as per the provisions of section 52A.
The court clarified that the determination of whether the weight at the time of seizure or the weight during the inventory before the Magistrate should be considered to establish the guilt of the accused would be addressed during the trial.
The court clarified that it had not taken a stance on whether the weight of the seized contraband at the time of seizure or the weight before the Magistrate, in compliance with section 52A, should be considered. This decision would depend on the circumstances of the case. The court also considered the prosecution's argument that the delay in section 52A compliance had caused prejudice because the Charas was initially found moist at the time of seizure but had dried by the time of sampling.
The court noted that Nayak had been in custody for over 1 year and 6 months, with a slim chance of the trial starting and concluding soon. Additionally, the court acknowledged Nayak's lack of prior criminal records, the completion of the investigation, and the filing of the charge-sheet.
Therefore, the court granted Nayak bail on a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with one or more sureties of the
TAGS: Court observation Nayak's custody duration Trial likelihood Criminal antecedents Investigation completion.
