Supreme Court: In a set of two criminal petitions against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cancelling the bail granted to the accused and challenging the Central Government’s decision transferring the investigation of FIRs against the accused and others to NIA in exercise of powers under Section and Section of the , the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna* and N. Kotiswar Singh, upheld the orders issued by the Central Government by exercising power under Section read with Section of the . The Bench also held that the NIA was justified in seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused herein by the High Court in respect of the offences alleged against him under the provisions of the NIA Act in the State of Punjab.
Further, the Court held that NIA while investigating a scheduled offence can also investigate a non-scheduled offence or a person involved in a non-scheduled offence provided there is a connection with the scheduled offence.
“The arc and web of drug trade cannot be permitted to corrode the shine of the youth of India!”
Background
During interrogation in a matter, the petitioner’s name surfaced. The accused was arrest and pursuant to his disclosure statements, recovery of, inter alia, narcotic substance-heroin was made. An FIR was registered under Sections , , , of the . Prior to the registration of the said FIR, another FIR under Section , , , , and of the was registered in 2018 at Police Station Anti-Terrorist Squad (PS ATS), Ahmedabad, Gujarat involving a criminal conspiracy by the arrested accused through whom the involvement of the present accused was figured out. The said FIR pertained to the smuggling and distribution of 500 kgs of narcotics, which were illicitly transported from Pakistan to Gujarat via the sea route. Considering the seriousness and scale of the offences, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in the exercise of its powers under Sections and of the transferred the investigation of the aforesaid case to NIA. The Central Government upon receipt of information registered with PS ATS formed an opinion that a Schedule Offence was committed and Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA — (Scheduled Offence under the NIA Act) – were attracted.
The present accused sought anticipatory bail before NIA Special Court at Ahmedabad, Gujarat which was dismissed. The NIA filed an application before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner for offences under Sections , , , , 85 of the and Sections , 53, 59 of the . The High Court allowed the application filed by NIA and cancelled the bail granted so as to enable the NIA to thoroughly investigate the offences which had been added to the offences alleged.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that if the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA are attracted in a given case being Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act, the Central Government, if it is of the opinion that such offences have been committed which is required to be investigated under the Act, may under Section of the , in exercise of its suo motu power direct the NIA to investigate the Scheduled Offences. Further, the Court added that while investigating such Scheduled Offences, the NIA can also investigate any other offence which the accused is alleged to have committed provided the other offence is connected with a Scheduled Offence.
Interpreting the term “the accused” in Section of the , the Court said that it cannot be interpreted narrowly to not include any other accused. The Court explained that expression “the accused” in Section of the cannot be restricted in its meaning and connotation to only the accused in respect of whom investigation is being carried out pursuant to Section of the in respect of a Scheduled Offence. The Court stated that it could also include any other accused who has committed any other offence provided that other offence committed by any other accused has a connection or a nexus with the Scheduled Offence which is detected during the course of investigation of any Scheduled Offence. The Court underscored that in the case of any other accused, the offences alleged need not be Scheduled Offences, it could be any offence but must necessarily have a connection with the Scheduled Offence.
Further, the Court added that the nexus or connection between any other offence and the Scheduled Offence is of critical importance and must be present in order to enable the NIA to investigate any other offence committed by an accused in connection with the Scheduled Offence. This connection would enable the NIA to investigate the accused of committing any other offence which is connected with the Scheduled Offence. Once there is such a connection between a Scheduled Offence and a non-scheduled offence then, for all practical purposes the non-scheduled offence would come within the connection of a Scheduled Offence.
Perusing the Government’s orders transferring the investigations of the FIRs to NIA, the Court noted that the offences against the accused herein under FIR No.20/2020 were under the NDPS Act and given their connection with the Scheduled Offence in respect of which the Central Government opined that the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA (Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act) were also attracted as a result, the Central Government directed the NIA to investigate into the Scheduled Offences (Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA).
The Court also noted that when the NIA was investigating into the Scheduled Offences in the Gujarat case, it forwarded reports to the Central Government in respect of FIR registered at Police Station STF, Amritsar, Punjab and FIR registered at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Court pointed out that on considering the said reports and on the strength of Section of the , the Central Government passed orders to investigate the offences alleged against the accused herein on the premise that those offences have a connection with the Scheduled Offences.
Hence, the Court held that the impugned orders of the Central Government were in accordance with Section read with Section of the .
The Ripple Effects of Illicit Drug Trade and Drug Abuse
The Court observed that as the globe grapples with the menace of escalating Substance Use Disorders (“SUD”) and an ever-accessible drug market, the consequences leave a generational imprint on public health and even national security. The Court stated that Article of the makes it a duty of the State to regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. The State has a responsibility to address the root causes of this predicament and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure that India’s younger population, which is particularly vulnerable to substance abuse, is protected and saved from such menace.
Regarding India, the Court observed that it is grappling with an expanding drug trade and a rising addiction crisis. According to the MoSJE 2019 Report, there are approximately 77 lakh problem opioid users in India, spread throughout the States of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Orissa.
“Peer pressure, lack of parental affection, care and guidance, stress from academic pressures and the easy availability of drugs contribute to this alarming trend. In many cases, adolescents resort to drugs as a form of escapism, trying to cope with personal and emotional issues.”
The Bench suggested that preventing drug addiction among adolescents requires a concerted effort from multiple stakeholders: parents and siblings, schools and the community.
Observing that parents have a crucial role in the prevention of drug abuse among adolescents, the Court said that parental awareness, communication, and support are key in mitigating the risk of drug addiction. Of equal importance is the need for schools and colleges to aid Government programs in educating students about the perils of drug abuse. They must include prevention of drug abuse in their curriculum, focusing on the physical, emotional, and legal consequences of drug abuse. The Court also underscored that local communities should work with NGOs and law enforcement agencies to create awareness campaigns that address the risks of drug abuse with a special focus on schools and youth centres. Either through awareness campaigns, community outreach or peer education, communities can play a critical role in creating knowledgeable safe space that curb the use of drugs.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2819 of 2024 Appellants : Ankush Vipan Kapoor Respondents : National Investigation Agency | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
BV Nagarathna, J.
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .