For peddler’s bail, consider harm done to society: HC

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 17

In a significant judgment liable to change the way bail pleas of accused in drug cases are dealt with, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that that the seriousness of the crime committed by a drug trafficker was not to be adjudged by the small quantity of contraband recovered, but his overall role in harming society.

The ruling by Justice HS Madaan came on a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by an accused in an FIR registered on December 15, 2019, for an offence under the provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, at the Mullana police station in Ambala district. The petitioner was nominated an accused in the case after a co-accused, during the course of investigation, disclosed that he had procured poppy husk from him.

Justice Madaan asserted that the recovery in the case was quite less. But the role played by the petitioner, being part of drug trafficking, could not be taken lightly. Such type of persons, indulging in drug trafficking, played with the lives of “many innocent persons by making them take to drug consumption for small financial gains”.

“The seriousness of the crime committed by the petitioner is not to be adjudged from the small quantity of the recovery of the contraband, but his overall role in harming society by facilitating drug trafficking,” Justice Madaan ruled.

In his detailed order, Justice Madaan added that the petitioner was said to be involved in another case under the Act registered in December 2019. It meant he was indulging in drug peddling and it corroborated the information furnished by the co-accused during his interrogation that he had procured the recovered poppy husk from the petitioner/accused.

Justice Madaan added that his counsel’s contention was that the petitioner was nominated an accused on the basis of a statement by a co-accused. As such, it was inadmissible in evidence. This, Justice Madaan, added was erroneous. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly provided that when several persons were being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one person affecting him and some others was proved, the court might take it into consideration against the maker and the other persons. Such type of statement could certainly be taken into consideration for providing lead in the investigation.