Sahil Goswami vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the applicant cannot be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. without satisfying the twin conditions enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as the contraband recovered was of commercial quantity. The Court found it difficult to hold at this stage that the accused has not committed the offence and that he will not commit any offence if released on bail. The Court emphasized that in the absence of satisfying these twin conditions, the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Satpal Singh versus State of Punjab, which held that orders under Section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. cannot be passed without reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and without entering a finding on the required level of satisfaction, especially when the quantity is commercial. The applicant's involvement was found to be based on an invoice from his mobile phone and his alleged role in transporting goods via a forged invoice, not just a WhatsApp message. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Sahil Goswami, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 125 of 2023, registered under Sections 22, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The FIR stemmed from the recovery of 28,560 capsules of Paracetamol, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, and Tramadol Hydrochloride from a pick-up vehicle. The police case alleged that the contraband belonged to Varinder Singh @ Bindu, and the applicant's father's medical store, 'Sai Medicos', was involved in issuing bills for the contraband, with the applicant's involvement inferred from an invoice found on his mobile phone and his alleged role in transporting goods via a forged invoice. The applicant claimed false implication and innocence, stating his father's medical store had closed in October 2022. His premises were searched, yielding no incriminating material. He was issued a notice to appear before the investigating agency.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant can be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. when the contraband recovered is of commercial quantity, without satisfying the twin conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated and has no connection with the alleged crime. He highlighted that he was not named as an accused in the FIR and that his father's medical store, which was allegedly involved, had ceased operations. He also pointed to the fact that nothing incriminating was found during the search of his premises. Respondent's Arguments: The State argued that the applicant was closely in contact with other named accused persons. The contraband recovered was of commercial quantity, and therefore, the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. could not be granted without satisfying the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The applicant's involvement was found based on an invoice (No. 33325) from his mobile phone and his alleged role in transporting goods via a forged invoice, indicating his involvement was not merely based on a WhatsApp message.