Cross Border Smuggling On Rise: P&H High Court Calls For Coordination With MEA In NDPS Cases Involving Foreign Nationals

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recommended that investigating agencies share the gist of their findings against foreign nationals accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act involving significant drug quantity, with the Ministry of External Affairs.

The bench noted that, "the Court's dockets have ever-increasing cases under the NDPS Act, 1985, and these days, the trend of heroin being smuggled by the Indian Drugs Mafia from Pakistan's border is also more noticeable."

"Today, even the most advanced nations of the world are finding it increasingly difficult to counter and control the rising menace of illicit drug trafficking and resultant drug abuse," it added.

Hence, the judge suggested that, one step, "that might be helpful to control the drug menace can be that whenever there is any involvement of foreign Nationals operating from foreign land, or drugs operations from outside India, when the quantity of drugs is significant, the senior officers from the rank of SSP and above must communicate the gist of investigation along with the information about such foreign National to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

The Bench further clarified that it is for the Ministry to consider whether to forward such details and information to the countries from which these criminals and mafias had carried out their operations.

These observations were made while hearing the bail plea filed under 21(c), 27A, 25, 29,61, 85 NDPS Act.

It was alleged that, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 1 kg of heroin from the possession of co-accused Satish Suman. 

During the investigation, accused Satish Suman disclosed that he used to procure heroin from Amritsar and Tarn Taran under the instructions of one Lucky, who is presently residing in the USA. Satish Suman also disclosed that after delivering heroin to customers, he used to hand over drug proceeds to Lucky's wife, namely Neha, and had also sold heroin to the present petitioner, Seema, as per the prosecution.

Rejecting to grant bail on the ground that the petitioner is a woman, the Court said, "It is for the reason that although the legislature has provided a separate category for women, that category would not be automatically applicable, given the serious nature of the offence, coupled with a criminal history. Petitioner's counsel neither referred to any studies, precedents, nor any reason why the petitioner, being a woman, is entitled to bail."

The Court noted that although the recovery is not from the petitioner, there is sufficient prima facie digital evidence connecting the petitioner with the main accused from whom 1 kg of heroin was recovered.

It added that the grounds in the bail petition do not shift the burden that the legislature places on the accused under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

"The petitioner has not stated anything in the bail petition to discharge the burden put by the stringent conditions placed in the statute by the legislature under section 37 of the NDPS Act."

The Court highlighted that, adjudicating a bail petition of an accused with a prior criminal record places a significant and exacting responsibility on courts to exercise judicial discretion in a manner that is both reasoned and balanced to consider the countervailing impacts on the freedom of an accused and that of society and free from arbitrariness, as arbitrariness is antithetical to the rule of law.

It also refused to consider the plea on ground of the custody and said that, "she is not entitled to bail on custody for the reason that her custody in the present case is around 09 months, and the quantity of heroin is 4 times the commercial quantity, and furthermore, the petitioner has a massive criminal history, which also indicates the petitioner's involvement. She was even convicted in one FIR and sentenced to 10 years."

Regarding the delay in the trial, the bench said, "if the trial does not conclude within three years of the petitioner's custody, and the delay is not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner may apply for bail before the trial Court."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

Title: Seema v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order