Borderline case

Material investigation in the case regarding seizure, weighing, packing and sealing of charas into parcel, separation of some quantity of it for chemical analysis through Forensic Laboratory was carried out by an ASI (Assistant Sub-Inspector)

Contention of accused that the entire action taken by the ASI by way of registration of a case under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and its investigation by him from its inception to the end was violative of the law on the subject, seemed forceful

Report of Chemical Examiner was still awaited

Recovered substance had marginally exceeded 01 kilogram, so the accused was not likely to be awarded maximum sentence provided by the statute

Accused was in jail and his trial was not likely to be concluded in near future

Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.

Accused was arrested when he was found in possession of 1204 grams of heroin and recovery memo. was silent qua the net weight or gross weight of recovered contraband

Quantity of recovered contraband was closer to the borderline limit of subsections (9)(b) & (9)(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Accused was behind the bars since his date of arrest and incomplete challan had been submitted in the Court

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Alleged narcotic substance was packed in a brown packet being carried in a plastic shopping bag, it could not be determined with certainty at this stage as to whether stated weight included the weight of the bags and whether in view of the quantity of the narcotic substance recovered, the case fell within the scope of S. 9(b) or 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Samples from the alleged narcotics substance recovered from the accused were not sent for chemical analysis within the prescribed period of seventy two hours and such delay was also considered a ground for further inquiry

As the report of the Chemical Examiner was still pending, it could not be determined beyond reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the accused was indeed a narcotic substance

Nothing was available on record to suggest that the accused, who had no previous criminal record, could abscond or tamper with the evidence if released on bail

Investigation was complete and the accused was in judicial custody, keeping him incarcerated would not serve the ends of justice

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Benefit of doubt is ordinarily given to the accused in borderline cases that may fall either in S. 9(b) or 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

Allegedly recovered contraband was 1300 grams charas and 300 grams crystal and it was a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Quantity of allegedly recovered charas marginally exceeded limit of 1000 grams, under such circumstances Trial Court had to determine whether the maximum punishment would be awarded or not

Where two quantum of sentences were provided in the statute, the lesser had to be considered for the purpose of bail

Question of quantum of sentence, in the present case, fell within the purview of further inquiry

Applicant had been shifted to judicial custody and the witnesses cited in the calendar were police personnel, therefore, the applicant was not required for further investigation nor there was any apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence

Medical certificates annexed with the application showed that the applicant was a cancer patient, therefore keeping him behind the bars without proper treatment might be dangerous for his life

Applicant had successfully made out a case calling for further inquiry as envisaged under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was accepted.

Allegation against the accused was that he was apprehended by the police and 1230 grams of charas was recovered from his possession

Weight of allegedly recovered material was slightly higher than the maximum weight mentioned in S. 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and brought the case within the mischief of S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Charas, as mentioned in the FIR, was wrapped in a bag at the time of recovery

FIR did not clarify as to whether the charas was taken out of the bag or it was weighed along with the bag

Trial Court, after recording of evidence would determine the net weight of the charas and as to whether the case of the petitioner fell under S. 9(b) or S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Petitioner was not involved in any other case of similar nature

Petition for grant of bail was accepted.

Accused, on the pointation of informer, was apprehended and on his personal search, charas weighing 1265 grams was recovered

Alleged recovery though fell under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 but slightly exceeded the maximum limit as prescribed under S. 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Recovered contraband was wrapped in a polythene shopper and it was not clear as to whether the weight of the recovered substance was conducted with or without the same

Report of Government Analyst was still awaited, without which, nature of the recovered substance could not be exactly determined

Said discrepancies were sufficient to bring the case of the accused within the ambit of further inquiry as per contemplation of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused was the first offender having no criminal antecedents

Investigation of the case was complete and person of the petitioner was not required by the police for the purpose of further investigation

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Case being a borderline case between cls. (b) & (c) of S. 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, further inquiry was required to determine the guilt of accused

Challan had been submitted but independent evidence to connect the accused with the guilt had not been collected

Accused was ordered to be enlarged on bail.

No material was placed on record by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation that accused was previously convicted or was a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal

Investigation of the case was complete

Prosecution witnesses were police officials, therefore, there was no apprehension of tampering with the evidence

Recovery of 1150 grams of narcotic was a borderline case between Ss.9(b) & 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, benefit of which could be extended to accused

Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.

Punishment to be awarded for the offence was always in commensuration with the quantum of recovery of contraband/crime, and the quantum of punishment had to be determined by the Trial Court

Questions as to whether in such like cases, accused would be liable to the maximum punishment provided for the offence; and whether the punishment in case of proof of the guilt after trial in circumstances would fall under the prohibitory clause, were questions requiring further probe

Record was also silent as to whether accused was habitual or previous convict etc.

All such facts made the case against accused one of further inquiry

Accused was directed to be released on bail, in circumstances.