Drug Abuse Among Youth Affects Societal Harmony, Addicts Are An Added Burden To Law-Abiding Population: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of an accused booked under the NDPS Act and observed that violation of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act (the “Act”) could not be considered by the Court at the stage of granting bail. These questions can only be answered at the trial stage in light of all the evidence put forth. It said:

“Youth forms the basic unit of the society. The harmony of the society depends on its younger members. When the members of society become drug abusers then it disturbs the entire societal harmony. Drugs and crime cannot be considered separately, in isolation from each other, especially if they emerge from a common set of circumstances…The addicts are, therefore, an added burden to the law-abiding population.”

Section 42 of the Act mandates only the authorities/officers mentioned in the Section to make an arrest or search, without a warrant, if they have reason to believe the commission of an offence.

Section 43 of the Act provides that the powers of search and seizure under Section 42 can be exercised in relation to a “Public Place”.

The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena was hearing the bail application filed by the accused who was alleging violation of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act on the part of the police, and thus seeking bail.

It was the case of the counsel for the applicant that the drug was seized from the private vehicle of the applicant which could not be termed as a “public place” under Section 43. Hence, it was argued that the drug seized was for the private consumption of the applicant and not for commercial use. The counsel further argued that the officer who seized the contraband was of the range of a sub-inspector and thus was not empowered under Section 42 to make the arrest and seizure without a warrant that too after sunset.

The counsel relied on and referred to several Supreme Court cases to argue that compliance with Sections 42 and 43 was mandatory and their non-fulfilment was inherently illegal.

Rejecting the argument put forth by the counsel for the applicant, the Court held that none of the cases referred to by the applicant could be relied upon since in all those cases the right of an accused in relation to non-compliance of provision of the Act was considered at the stage of trial/appeal.

The Court held that non-compliance of any provisions of the Act could only be scrutinized on the basis of the evidence led before the trial court i.e. the evidence of the material witnessed who are connected with the compliance of such provisions. Hence, such analysis could not be done by the Court while deciding the bail application of the accused.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the increasing havoc created by the growing issue of drug abuse and pointed out the correlation between increased drug abuse and criminal activities. It held:

“Drug abuse has taken its toll in almost all the districts of Rajasthan. The addicts primarily belong to youth age. The high rate of drug consumption is leading to issues like illegal trade, drug trafficking, and smuggling…Drug addiction is the worst kind of addiction and it causes numerous mental and physical ailments and such youth go often into depression. In order to cope up with stress and depression, they try to consume more drugs and keep spiraling around... become vulnerable and many of them commit suicide or get involved in different kinds of criminal activities. Drug abuse has a direct impact on social and economic aspect of the nation. It results in violence at home and gang wars in cities, increase crimes and even stresses the public health system.”

In light of the analysis in relation to the violation of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act and taking into account the fact that the applicant had five criminal antecedents, the bail application was rejected.

Title: Shakti Gurjar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 187

Click Here To Read/Download Order