The Allahabad High Court granted interim protection from arrest to an individual named in a codeine cough syrup racket case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. A Division Bench considered a petition seeking relief from imminent arrest in connection with a First Information Report alleging involvement in the alleged illegal distribution and sale of codeine-based cough syrups. The petitioner contended that he was neither directly involved in the commission of the offence nor had any role in the alleged racket, and submitted that the police had named him on the basis of vague and general allegations without tangible evidence linking him to the offence.
The High Court examined the material placed on record and noted that the petitioner’s role in the alleged racket was not clearly established through independent evidence, relying primarily on statements made by accused persons under investigation. The court observed that mere inclusion of a person’s name in the FIR, without supporting evidence indicating active participation in the alleged criminal activity, did not justify immediate arrest without judicial scrutiny. The bench underscored that granting interim protection in such circumstances would not impede the investigation but would protect an individual from unnecessary deprivation of liberty pending further inquiry. The court further directed that interim protection should not be construed as immunity from prosecution, emphasizing that the petitioner was required to cooperate with the ongoing investigation and appear before the investigating agency as and when called.
In light of the submissions and the nature of the allegations, the High Court granted interim stay of arrest and directed that the petitioner appear before the investigating officer within a stipulated period. The court clarified that the protection from arrest was subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, furnishing of correct contact details, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The bench stressed that should the investigation develop incriminating material against the petitioner, the protection could be reconsidered. The order aimed to balance the need to uphold the fundamental right to personal liberty with the interests of investigative efficacy in cases involving alleged narcotics distribution networks.
The grant of interim protection was considered appropriate by the High Court given the prima facie lack of material directly implicating the petitioner, and the court’s direction sought to ensure that the individual was not unjustly subjected to arrest without sufficient evidentiary basis. The order reaffirmed the principle that courts must carefully examine the nature of evidence before subjecting individuals to coercive action, particularly in matters under stringent statutes like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The High Court’s intervention provided temporary relief while underscoring the ongoing status of the investigation and the possibility of review should further incriminating evidence emerge.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.