- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Grant of bail to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') by a learned single Judge, of the Delhi High Court is questioned by the Customs authorities who had purportedly recovered huge quantity of "Diazepam" - 5 mg." Tablets from her.
(3.) Factual background necessary to be noted is as follows : On 4-4-2000 Customs authorities detained the respondent-accused, a Uzbeck national who came to India to do business in garments and was found carrying large quantity of "Diazepam"-5 mg. tablets". In the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') recovery of tablets was admitted by the accused. She was arrested on 5-4-2000. An application for bail was filed before the Special Court, NDPS Act which was rejected taking into account of the embargo placed under Section 37 of the Act. The accused-respondent filed an application for bail under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). The stand taken essentially was that the tablets seized were not "psychotropic substance" within the definition of the term in the Act. The application was opposed by the detaining authorities on the ground that the article in question was covered by Serial No. 43 of the Schedule to the Act, the export, production manufacture, possession etc. which are prohibited under Section 8 of the Act. The High Court was of the view that no definite material was placed to show the materials allegedly recovered conforms to the chemical name mentioned in the Item No. 43 of the Schedule to the Act, and, therefore, cannot be treated to be a psychotropic substance. Report of the Central Control Laboratory which was placed for consideration was held to be of no consequence. Accordingly bail was granted to the respondent on her furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It was further stipulated that the respondent accused was not to leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission from that Court.;