Jaykumar @ Babu Sindhi vs. Central Narcotics Bureau

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to default bail. The primary reason was that the Special Judge, under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, had extended the period of investigation from 180 days to one year, vide an order dated February 18, 2022. This order was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties and had attained finality as it was not challenged by the petitioner. The Court also noted that the seized quantity of contraband was more than commercial, falling under Section 18-B of the NDPS Act, with a maximum sentence of 20 years. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner was a habitual offender, and the investigation was ongoing, necessitating custodial interrogation. The bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was also considered. Therefore, no case was made out for granting regular or default bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Jaykumar @ Babu Sindhi, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. He was arrested on August 27, 2021, in connection with Crime No. 1/2021 registered under various sections of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that during a search of the petitioner's factory/godown, a large quantity of poppy straw and opium was seized. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating he had rented the premises to Padmanath Enterprises and was not present at the time of seizure. He also argued that the challan was not filed within the stipulated 180 days, entitling him to default bail. The respondent, Central Narcotics Bureau (CBN), opposed the bail, highlighting the large quantity of contraband seized, the petitioner's alleged involvement as a kingpin, and previous offenses registered against him. They also contended that a co-accused denied renting the factory from the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, considering the challan was allegedly not filed within 180 days? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was entitled to default bail as the challan was not filed within the statutory period of 180 days. He relied on the principle that the right to default bail is a fundamental right. He also argued that no offense under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act was made out against him. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the seized quantity was commercial, attracting severe penalties. They cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the gravity of NDPS offenses and the need to satisfy Section 37 of the NDPS Act. They also presented a statement from a co-accused denying the rental agreement and alleged the petitioner was a habitual offender and the kingpin of a drug cartel. The respondent also pointed out that an application for extension of investigation period under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act was allowed by the Special Judge, which was not challenged by the petitioner.