NDPS Act | Calcutta High Court Upholds Arrest Warrant Against UAE Resident Who Facilitated Delivery Of MDMA, LSD Through 'Dark Web'
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld warrants of arrest and proclamation & attachment issued in an NDPS case against the petitioner, who hailed from Kerala but was residing in the UAE for employment. Petitioner was alleged to have caused the delivery of MDMA and LSD blots to his associates in Calcutta, through co-accused over the dark web in 2017.A single-bench of Justice Shampa...
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld warrants of arrest and proclamation & attachment issued in an NDPS case against the petitioner, who hailed from Kerala but was residing in the UAE for employment.
Petitioner was alleged to have caused the delivery of MDMA and LSD blots to his associates in Calcutta, through co-accused over the dark web in 2017.
A single-bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed the petitioner's revision plea, and held:
Petitioner [caused] delivery of MDMA, LSD from one of his darkweb vendor of drugs available at Nashik and the vendor at Nashik further shipped the consignment to Calcutta through DTDC Courier service. Another accused confessed that on the directions of the petitioner, he shipped drugs to Kolkata. He further stated that he and the petitioner used to communicate through encrypted chat of darkweb, and petitioner used to send money through “BITCOIN.” In such circumstances, the Court will have to consider the gravity of the offences and role played by the Accused. Any indulgence shown in such cases considering the conduct, would clearly amount to an abuse of process of law.
It was argued by the petitioner that the proceedings against him were initiated by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), who had discovered that he engaged a network of co-accused to deliver the consignment of drugs using encrypted technology such as the dark web and cryptocurrency for payment.
It was argued that the NCB had issued a Lookout Circular (LOC) against him and that he was not given a fair chance to be heard before an LOC and prohibitory order had been passed against him, which barred him from participating in the investigation.
Court noted that the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail had been rejected and that upon non-execution of the arrest warrant, the trial court had also issued a warrant for proclamation & attachment against him.
It was also found that the petitioner had filed and then withdrawn a plea before the Supreme Court and that his plea for recall of LOC had also been rejected by the Sessions court.
Counsel for the NCB opposed the present revision plea, stating that in a case of such magnitude granting the petitioners prayer would be against the interests of justice.
In discussing the nature of arrest warrants, the Court held:
Warrant can be issued only to secure the presence of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or when the person accused of a non-bailable offence, is evading arrest. In the light of the language employed in section 73 of Criminal Procedure Code a warrant of arrest can be issued after coming to the conclusion that there is no other way to secure the presence of the accused.
It reiterated that the factors to take into account while recalling a warrant would be akin to those considered before granting bail.
In holding so, it noted that the offence in the present case was grave, the role played by the petitioner was supported by the materials on record, the petitioner resided outside the country so his presence needed to be secured and the petitioner till date had not appeared before any Court or law enforcement agency, fearing arrest.
Accordingly, while observing that no extradition proceedings had yet begun, the Court upheld the warrants issued by the trial court and dismissed the plea.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
Case: Saran Gopal Krishnan Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata.
Case No: CRR 75 of 2022