Repeated Drug Cases and Failure to Surrender After Bail Cancellation Justify Refusing Bail: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner, in custody in an NCB case under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, sought bail under Section 439 CrPC (para 1). He submitted that nothing was recovered from him, that co-accused found with contraband had been bailed, and that he is 75% handicapped (para 3). The Special Public Prosecutor cited three other cases and the 33 kg opium recovery (para 4). The petitioner's earlier bail, he said, had been cancelled with a direction to surrender within thirty days; he did not surrender and was taken into custody only after the Supreme Court upheld the cancellation two years later (para 5). The co-accused were released on their custody period, which he had not undergone (para 6).

The Court recorded that 33 kg of opium had admittedly been recovered, that the allegation against the petitioner was of supplying it, and that he was involved in at least three more narcotics cases in Rajasthan (para 8). Bail is always granted on the footing that the accused will not commit an offence similar to the one alleged; his involvement in like offences on three occasions showed that he had grossly misused the liberty granted by the courts (para 8). It quoted the factors in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, including the gravity of the accusation, the likelihood of repetition and the danger of absconding (para 9). Despite the cancellation of his bail, the petitioner had not surrendered on time, and the respondents had to put the entire machinery in motion to take him into custody (para 10). A person involved in drug trafficking on a number of occasions can be called a habitual offender; citing drugs' harm to families and the young, it declined a lenient view (para 11). Considering the seriousness of the case, the quantity of contraband and the gravity of the accusation, it refused bail at this stage (para 12).