The Delhi Court noted that section 37 NDS Act’s prohibition is no longer in effect because there is no evidence connecting the accused with any illegal substances found in Australia.
Fact of the case
Simpel Sharma was detained for engaging in the online sale of illegal drugs in violation of the Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 (NDPS Act) in the case of NCB v. Kaushal Bhotika at hand. Simpel Sharma is accused under Sections 8, 9A, and 12 read with Sections 22, 24, 25-A, 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act. A tracking ID for a package containing 1 kg of illegal methamphetamine that was shipped from Mexico to Australia was discovered by NCB.
Submission from both the parties
The only alleged evidence against the applicants, according to the defence attorneys for the accused, were the Whats App chats, which had nothing to do with the illegal goods that had been confiscated outside of India. There had been no recovery in the case, they claimed. Additionally, it was argued that only Section 24 has the ability to prohibit the use of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and that in the absence of any evidence against the accused, that prohibition is eliminated.
The bail application was contested by NCB’s attorney, who claimed that there was a bar. According to section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioners and the accused a gang of syndicate engaged in international drug trafficking had a number of claimed conversations on offers to sell or buy drugs and prohibited substances.
Analysis court judgement
The complaint was submitted in accordance with Sections 8, 9A, and 12 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 22, 24, 25-A, 28, and 29. Since no recovery was made in the case, the court noted that Section 24 of the NDPS Act is the only section that falls under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Only a tracking ID for the seized contraband was found on the main accused phone.
The court also took note of the investigation officer’s particular statement that there was no proof at all connecting the applicants or accused with the illegal substance found in Australia. The bar of section 37 NDPS ct is thus lowered because there is no evidence linking the accused to any illegal items found in Australia.
The accused was given bail by the court since they had been in detention for a significant amount of time and it would be counterproductive to keep them in jail while the case was pending. Additionally, because NCB personnel were called as witnesses, there was no possibility of tampering with the evidence, so the accused’s release from custody was granted.