In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to Bandu Dagadu Udanshive, who was arrested for possessing 24 kilograms of high-quality hashish. The court’s decision was primarily based on the non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the extended duration of Udanshive’s pre-trial detention.
Incident Overview
On October 24, 2021, acting on a tip-off, the Dahisar police intercepted a Santro car at the Dahisar check post. Inside the vehicle were Udanshive, his wife, daughter, son-in-law, and a child, all returning from a family trip to Kashmir. Upon searching the car, officers discovered 8 kg of hashish in Udanshive’s possession and an additional 16 kg concealed within the vehicle’s door and trunk compartments. Consequently, authorities charged Udanshive under the NDPS Act for possession and trafficking of commercial quantities of narcotics.
Legal Arguments and Court Findings
Advocate Anil G. Lalla, representing Udanshive, argued that the police failed to adhere to the statutory requirements outlined in the NDPS Act. Specifically, he pointed out that the officers did not record the received information in writing, nor did they forward it to their superior officers, as mandated by Section 42 of the Act. This section requires that any officer who receives information regarding drug-related offenses must document it and promptly inform their immediate superior.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor AA Naik, opposed the bail application, emphasizing the severity of the offense and the substantial quantity of drugs involved. Naik contended that Udanshive had not served more than half of the potential sentence, suggesting that bail was unwarranted.
However, Justice Milind Jadhav observed a critical lapse in the procedural conduct of the police. The absence of an entry in the station diary by the Station House Officer (SHO) and the lack of timely communication to superior officers constituted a clear non-compliance with the NDPS Act’s mandatory provisions. Justice Jadhav emphasized that such oversights could not be dismissed lightly, as they directly impact the legitimacy of the investigation and the accused’s rights.
Implications of Non-Compliance
The NDPS Act’s stringent procedures are designed to ensure transparency and accountability during narcotics investigations. Non-compliance with these procedures can lead to questions about the integrity of the evidence and the legality of the arrest. In this case, the court highlighted that prolonged incarceration without a realistic prospect of trial completion infringes upon the accused’s right to a speedy trial, a fundamental aspect of the right to life guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Bail Conditions
Considering the procedural lapses and the improbability of the trial concluding in a reasonable timeframe, the court granted bail to Udanshive. The bail conditions require him to furnish a personal bond of one lakh rupees, accompanied by one or two sureties of the same amount. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural fairness and the rights of individuals, even in cases involving serious allegations.
Conclusion
This ruling serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement agencies about the importance of adhering to statutory procedures during investigations. Ensuring compliance not only fortifies the prosecution’s case but also safeguards the rights of the accused, maintaining the delicate balance between law enforcement and individual freedoms.
