Bombay High Court: In the present case, applicant was in jail since her date of arrest i.e., 30-04-2024 and sought regular bail in a case registered with the police station for offences under Sections , , and of the (‘the NDPS Act’). A Single Judge Bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J., opined that there was prima facie material available against applicant for carrying commercial quantity of contraband “ganja”, however, factors were to be taken into consideration that release of applicant, who was at a stage of advanced pregnancy, did not pose a high security risk and would not cause any prejudice to the investigation though there was a rigour under Section of the . The Court thus directed that applicant would be released on temporary bail for a period of six months from the date of her release from the prison concerned.
Background
The Gondia Railway Security Force conducted a raid in a train named Sambalpur-Pune Express and during the raid, contraband “Ganja” was recovered from five people including applicant and thus, the crime was registered. It was stated that applicant and her husband along with the other co-accused persons were carrying commercial quantity of “Ganja” of 33.201 kgs worth of Rs 6,64,020. Thereafter, a search was conducted and seized contraband was forwarded to the Magistrate for inventory. Applicant was arrested and at the time of arrest, she was two months pregnant and presently, she was carrying an advanced pregnancy and, therefore, the present application was filed.
Counsel for applicant submitted that the application was filed mainly on grounds that she was having an advanced stage of pregnancy and, therefore, for some time, she should be released on bail. It was submitted that applicant was exhibiting symptoms, which were indicative of probable complications at the time of delivery of child and, therefore, on humanitarian grounds, applicant deserved to be released on temporary bail. It was further submitted that applicant was in prison, which was not equipped to provide emergent medical care which applicant required.
Analysis, Law, and decision
The Court stated that there was no dispute that applicant and her husband were found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband article “Ganja” along with other co-accused persons. The Court opined that a person to be searched under the was required to be informed about his/her right under Section of the before he/she was searched, and the same was a mandatory requirement. Section of the would be applicable in the case of personal search of the accused and not when it was in respect of baggage, articles, and vehicles and or containers. The Court noted that in the present case, contraband articles were not found during the personal search of the accused, but it was found in baggages carried by applicant and other accused persons and the samples were obtained in presence of panchas.
The Court opined that though applicant could be treated at the Government Hospital for her pregnancy, however, delivering child during pregnancy in jail atmosphere would certainly have an impact not only on applicant but also on the child, which could not be lost sight of. Every person, including the prisoner, was entitled to dignity which the situation demanded. Delivering a child in prison might have consequences for the mother and child and, therefore, humane considerations were required.
The Court relied on R.D. Upadhya v. State of A.P., , wherein the Supreme Court considered the plight of children staying in jail with their mothers and issued directions as far as childbirth in prison was concerned, (a) as far as possible and provided she had a suitable option, arrangements for temporary release/parole (or suspended sentence in case of minor and casual offender) should be made to enable an expectant prisoner to have her delivery outside the prison. Only exceptional cases constituting high security risk or cases of equivalent grave descriptions could this facility be denied; (b) births in prison, when they occur, should be registered in the local birth registration office, but the fact that the child was born in prison should not be recorded in the certificate of birth that would be issued. Only the address of the locality should be mentioned, and (c) as far as circumstances permit, all facilities for the naming rites of children born in prison shall be extended.
The Court opined that there was prima facie material available against applicant for carrying commercial quantity of contraband “ganja”, however, factors were to be taken into consideration that release of applicant, who was at a stage of advanced pregnancy, did not pose a high security risk and would not cause any prejudice to the investigation though there was a rigour under Section of the . Therefore, the Court held that the application to release applicant on temporary bail deserved to be considered on humanitarian grounds.
The Court allowed the application and directed that applicant would be released on temporary bail for a period of six months from the date of her release from the prison concerned on her executing a PR Bond of Rs 50,000 with one or more sureties of the like amount.
[Surbhi v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (BA) No. 940 of 2024, decided on 27-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appliant: M.V. Rai, Counsel for the Applicant;
For the Non-Applicant/State: S.V. Narale, Additional Public Prosecutor for the NA/State.
The post appeared first on .