Bail application dismissed for having no new ground to support the application – Manipur high court
Bail application dismissed for having no new ground to support the application – Manipur high court A bail application filed under section 437 of CRPC with section 37 of ND&amp;PS act for enlarging the petitioners on bail was dismissed as the honorable court agreed with the decision of Special Court (ND&amp;PS), Manipur and dismissed the application as no new grounds or materials were presented the judgment was heard before a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH in the case of Manglinhao Zou and Ors versus Narcotic Control of Bureau ( B.A. No. 20 of 2021) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the NCB never collected or seized the contraband drugs from the possession of the petitioners they were only eye-witnesses and the contraband drugs and articles were seized from the room occupied by the co-accused and they are not the actual owner of the said drugs.it is also submitted that the petitioners have no idea, knowledge, or information of any of the activities, viz., produce, manufacture, possess, sell, warehouse, import, export, etc., of the said contraband substances seized from the room of the other co-accused and they, have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel also submits that the arresting authority did not comply with the mandatory provisions under section 41, 42, and 50 of the ND&amp;PS Act as well as the mandatory provisions under sections 100 and 165 of the CrPC, and the arrest was made without proper authority and there are no witnesses hence the petitioners are entitled to the bail the counsel relies on the judgment of (i) “Narcotic Central Bureau – Vs – Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi” reported in 2011 AIR (SC) 1939, (ii) “Ashok Kumar Sharma –Vs- The State of Rajasthan” reported in (2013) 2 SCC 67, (iii) “Union of India –Vs- Jassuram” reported in 2002 Legal Eagle (SC) 466 and (iv) “Abdul Rahman –vs- The State of Kerala” reported in (1997) 11 SCC 93. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the present petitioners were found along with the other co-accused, viz., Mr. Waipho, inside his room, engaging themselves in the packaging of Methamphetamine Tablet and the following were seized by the NCB and there is no violation of the seizure formalities as provided under section 42 of the ND&amp;PS Act 1985. And the authorities relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, which deals with the search and seizure under section 50 of the ND&amp;PS Act, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the council demands the dismission of the following application. The learned court finds that the petitioners in the present bail application have been considered and rejected by the learned Special Court (ND&amp;PS), Manipur, by giving a reasoned order. This Court agrees with the reasons given by the learned Special Court (ND&amp;PS), Manipur, and as there are no new ground or material brought before the court the present bail application is rejected.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL B.A. No. 221 1. Manglinhao Zou aged about 35 years s o Khamlianthang Zou resident of Moreh Ward No. 3 Tengnoupal Manipur Sub Division Chandel Manipur 795131. 2. Ms. Nongaihlian Zou aged about 31 years D o Khamlianthang Zou resident of Moreh Ward No. 03 Moreh PS Moreh Manipur Accused Persons Petitioners. Now in judicial custody) Versus Narcotic Control of Bureau Imphal now at Changangei near Airport Road Imphal West Manipur. .....Respondent. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH B E F O R E For the petitioners Mr. Ch. Bimolchandra Advocate For the respondent Mr. N. Brojendro Singh Advocate Date of Hearing Date of Order O R D E R Heard Mr. Ch. Bimolchandra learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Brojendro Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The present petition has been field by the petitioners under section 439 of the CrPC read with section 37 of the ND&PS Act for them on bail in connection with NCB Crime No. B.A. No. 221 Page 1 05 04 NCB Imp WY CL 2020 dated 07.12.2020 u s 8 22 27 A and 29 of the ND&PS Act 1985. The prosecution case is that on receiving reliable specific information about illegal production and processing of Methamphetamines Tablets at a Makeshift Clandestine Laboratory at Ward No. 3 near public ground Moreh a team of NCB Officials with the help of personnels of 43 Bn. Assam Rifle and some Panchas conducted a raid on 07.12.2020 at about 15.30 hours for necessary search and seizures. In the said raid 3 persons were found inside the suspected wooden house and during the search operation a large quantity of Methamphetamine and other items were found and the same were seized after following due process. Thereafter acting on the input provided by one of the suspected persons the aforesaid team of NCB along with the personnels of AR and Panchas proceeded to a suspected location supposed to be producing and processing Methaphetamine at a Makeshift Clandestine Laboratory located at Moreh Ward No. 3 Tengnoupal near Tamil Temple Manipur and conducted another search operation. In the said such operation conducted inside the suspected house the team found 3 persons along with a large quantity of Methaphetamine and other drugs and illegal items and the same were seized after following due process. In connection with the seizure of the said illegal drugs and other items the accused persons including the present petitioners B.A. No. 221 Page 2 were arrested and they have been placed under judicial custody till The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the NCB never collected or seized the contraband drugs from the possession or at the instance of the petitioners and that the petitioners are merely eye witness of the seizure of the said seized contravene articles. It has also been submitted that the said contraband drugs and articles were seized from the room occupied by the other co accused and that the petitioners are not the owners occupiers or possessors of the said seized illegal psychotropic substances and they are innocent of all the charges level against them. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have no idea knowledge or information of any of the activities viz. produce manufacture possess sell warehouse import export etc. of the said contraband substances seized from the room of the other co accused and that they have nothing to do with the said co accused and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case without any shred of evidence against them. It has been submitted that at the time of the alleged seizure the arresting authority did not comply with the mandatory provisions under section 41 42 and 50 of the ND&PS Act as well as the mandatory provisions under section 100 and 165 of the CrPC and as such the alleged seizure and arrest were made without any authority. It has also B.A. No. 221 Page 3 been submitted that at the time of the search of and alleged seizure there were no independent witnesses and as such the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of“Narcotic Central Bureau Vs Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi” reported in 2011 AIR1939 “Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Rajasthan” reported in2 SCC 67 iii) “Union of India Vs Jassuram” reported in 2002 Legal Eagle SC) 466 and “Abdul Rahman vs The State of Kerala” reported in11 SCC 93. The next ground advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the memorandum of arrest is defective and the search cum seizure list was wrongly prepared by the I.O. of the case and such documents are false and fabricated documents. It has also been contended that the search and seizure was conducted by the personnel of the Assam Rifles as can be seen from the newspaper report issued on the next day of the said raid and in view of the above the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8] Countering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing fort the respondent that at the time of conducting the search operation the present petitioners were found along with the other co accused viz. Mr. Waipho inside his room engaging themselves in packaging of Methaphetamine Tablets and the search B.A. No. 221 Page 4 party seized a large commercial quantity of 128.07 kgs of Methaphetamine Tablets from the room where the said 3 accused persons were found. Thereafter the NCB Officer who seized the contraband drugs and articles submitted a detail seizure report to the SP NCB Imphal within 48 hours of the seizure and as such there is no violation of the seizure formalities as provided under section 42 of the ND&PS Act 1985. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that provisions of section 50 of the ND&PS Act deals with the procedure for conduct of physical search of persons and accordingly provisions of section 50 are not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the search and seizure was made from inside a room and not on the personal search on the body of the accused persons. In view of the above it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the authorities relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners which deals with the search and seizure under section 50 of the ND&PS Act are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the authorities complied with the provisions of section 100 and 165 of the CrPC as the search and seizure was carried out in the presence of 2 independent witness namely viz. Anilkumar and H. Subadani Devi who put their signature as Pancha witnesses in the search cum seizure list in presence of the accused persons. B.A. No. 221 Page 5 It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that mentioning of the name of Paokhothang Haokip in the 9th line of Para 2 of the memorandum of arrest was due to slip of pen and that the name of the petitioner No. 1 was clearly mentioned in the third line of the said memorandum of arrest and he put his signature in the memorandum of arrest and accordingly such slip of pen does not affect the fact of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the case. It has also been submitted that the newspaper reports are hearsay in nature and the same are not admissible as evidence and that the petitioners are involved in commission of heinous crime of trafficking manufacturing selling of drugs and psychotropic substances and they may continue to do so even after their release on bail as such business are said to be highly profitable. Accordingly the learned counsel prayed for rejecting the present bail application. It may be mentioned here that the present petitioners have already approached the learned Special CourtManipur for enlarging them on bail by filing Cril. Misc. Case No. 34 2021 and Cril. Misc. Case No. 35 2021. The said 2 bail applications were rejected by the learned Special Court Manipur by a common order dated 17.04.2021 after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the present petitioners and by giving a reasoned 12] After hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records of the present B.A. No. 221 Page 6 case as well as the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the learned Special Court Manipur this Court is of the considered view that all the grounds and submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the present bail application have been considered and rejected by the learned Special Court Manipur by giving a reasoned order. This Court endorse and agrees with the reasons given by the learned Special CourtManipur in its order dated 17.04.2021 passed in the aforesaid 2 bail applications filed by the present petitioners. As no new grounds or materials have been brought before me in the present bail application I do not find any ground or reason for enlarging the present petitioners on bail. Accordingly the present bail application is hereby rejected. JUDGE B.A. No. 221 Page 7 