- MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT -

Subham Mohanty
1883159

Moot Court and Internship (Clinic-III) LW5084, KIIT, School of Law

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES OF INDUS
UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES OF
INDUS

IN THE MATTER OF
ARTICLE 32 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES OF INDUS,

SECTION 20(b) (ii) (c) , SECTION 25 AND SECTION 27 (a) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS
AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE ACT, 1985

ARAV SAHOO………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER

v.
THE STATE OF ADISHA …………………………………………….. RESPONDENT 1
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU…………………………………...RESPONDENT 2
THE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADISHA………………..RESPONDENT 3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS Page no.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2

6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

7
STATEMENT OF FACT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13

22
PRAYER

1
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN CASES :-
● Rhea Chakroborty v. UOI, AIR 2020 SCC 2386
● Prem Chand v. State of HP, AIR 2021
● Sunder Singh v. The State of HP, AIR 2017
● Amar Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab
● Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, AIR 2010 SCC 496
● Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma AIR 2020 SCC 118
● Sajad C. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2019
● Mujeeb v. State of Kerala, AIR 1999
● Jinabhai Kalabhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1998 GLR 1635
● Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura & Ors. AIR 2022 SLP 6683
● SK Serajul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SCC 78
● Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SCC 554
● Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1979 SCC 465
● SK Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SCC 395
● Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut, AIR 1989 SCC 556
● Asha Devi v. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, AIR 1979 Cri
LJ 203

STATUTES :-
● Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985
● Indian Penal Code, 1860
● Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
● Indian Constitution

2
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

BOOKS :-
● Dr. K. P Singh, “ Practical Approach to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance
Act, 1985
● Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, “Law Relating to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substance”, 2023
● Barar’s Digest on NDPS Act, 1985, 2022
● Dr J. N Pandey, “ Constitutional Law of India”, Central Law Agency, 2021

Research Papers : -
● Satyakam Mohapatra, “ Current Status of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (NDPS ) Act”, 2013
● Namisha Choudhary, “ Drug Abuse and the Failure of the NDPS Act to Curb the
Issue : A Socio - Legal Analysis” 2021
● Dr. Sandra Joseph, “Drug Demand Reduction Programme in India - A Qualitative
Research Analysis” 2019

3
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

& And

V. Verses

Sec Section

Hon’ble Honourable

Mad. Madras

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

NDPS Substance

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Reporter

IPC Indian Penal Code

Anr. Another's

UP Uttar Pradesh

Del Delhi

Para Paragraph

SCC Supreme Court Cases

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

UOI Union Of India

5
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In accordance with Articles 32 and 136 of the United States of Indus Constitution, the petitioner
has petitioned the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the United States of Indus. The present case may
be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States of Indus.

Article 32 of the Constitution:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.

Article 136 of the Constitution:

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed forces.

6
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACT

INTRODUCTION

1. One of the largest democracies is the Indus States. The constitution's preamble declares
the USI sovereign. socialist, secular, democratic, republic where the Constitution is
supreme. Indus states include Adisha.
2. Arav Sahoo, 58, of Badlapur, Adisha, was arrested in 2017 for breaking the NDPS Act
and accused with violating Section 20 (b) (ii) (c), Section 25 and Section 27, however
he was cleared of all charges in 2018.
3. Arav Sahoo, a farmer, runs a fishing and poultry farm in his home with numerous staff.
To secure the business, he installed closed-circuit cameras (CCTV).

BACKGROUND

4. Around 3PM on 18 July 2019, two people were standing on their ZTM bike and Xonda
Activ Scooty at Falgiri Adisha with one plastic sack each, while four more stood nearby
with plastic sacks.

5. Police questioned the motorcycle and scooter riders about the laden plastic sacks. They
hesitated before admitting that the plastic sachets contained ganja. When queried about
the ganja, everyone there said Arav sahoo, who was with them, was sponsoring it. Ganja
weighed 298.20 Kilograms on a battery-powered digital scale. When asked about their
ganja, they couldn't present a licence.

6. Before the executive magistrate. The executive magistrate, police, and independent
witnesses ordered the alleged accused to open the plastic sacks, which revealed
cannabis plant fruits and flowers, locally known as Ganja, a banned item under the

7
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

NDPS Act. The staff search found just mobile phones, voter IDs, and driving licences,
with no incriminating items.

Arav Sahoo, a prosperous businessman, owns several chicken farms in his hometown. He
lives near these farms. Arav Sahoo was arrested on 17.07.2019 at 11:00 p.m. from his home
in Badlapur, Adisha, by the investigating officer of Falgiri, Adisha, 180 kilometres from the
scene of the incident, which was recorded by CCTV in his house. The investigating officer
noted in the chargesheet that Arav Sahoo and the other accused were arrested from Falg
7. iri, Adisha, at 3:00 p.m. on 18.07.2019. The charge sheet includes this.

DISPUTE

8. Following Arav Sahoo's conviction by the Judicial Magistrate of Special Court, Falgiri,
the High Court of Adisha affirmed the verdict of the Judicial Magistrate of Special
Court, Falgiri. And both the courts rejected the plea of electronic evidence during the
trail and appeal.
9. The appeal that was submitted by Arav Sahoo has now been accepted by the Supreme
Court of the United States of Indus.

8
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I : WHETHER OR NOT ARAV SAHOO WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 20 (b)
(ii) (c ), SECTION 25 AND SECTION 27 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 ?

ISSUE II : WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN ARAV

SAHOO AND THE OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS?

ISSUE III : IS THE REJECTION OF PLEA OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE VALID? IS

THERE ANY RELEVANCY OF THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF ARAV SAHOO IN
THE PRESENT CASE?

ISSUE IV : WHAT ARE THE BASIC GROUNDS ON WHICH SUPREME COURT

ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF ARAV SAHOO ?

9
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I : WHETHER OR NOT ARAV SAHOO WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 20

(b) (ii) (c ), SECTION 25 AND SECTION 27 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 ?

1.1 It is humbly submitted before the SC that the incident of July, 2019, in which large
quantities of 298.20 kg Ganja was allegedly seized, was alone sufficient for the detention of
the petitioner and his conviction in the Act. it is shown as to how the said ground suffers from
innumerable legal infirmities. Recovery of large quantities of ganja together with the face of
conviction in the Act is a good ground for imposing punishment in the NDPS Act.
1.2 As a fact, the counter affidavit's assertion that "the action under the ordinary law has not
desisted him from engaging in anti-social activities of dealing in Narcotic substances" is
untrue is not helpful to the detaining authority. For the same reason, the counter-subsequent
affidavit's claim that "he will not desist from engaging in this illicit activity in spite of the
beginning of prosecution procedures against him under the various sections of legislation,
namely, NDPS Act, 1985," is also to be disregarded. These claims convey the impression
that the institution holding the person in custody views detention as a more deterring
penalty than a finding of guilt in a criminal proceeding. This demonstrates a perplexed
mental state. "

ISSUE II : WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN ARAV

SAHOO AND THE OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS?

2.1 It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court that the bills and
transaction details of the account of the petitioner is a proof of financing for the said
ganja is sufficient that there is a connection or illegal controversy between the
petitioner and the other accused persons. The petitioner has not placed any
document to show that he was doing real estate business or he acquired the property

10
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

out of his income and that the investment was made by him out of the income from
the drug trafficking.
2.2 The petitioner has produced income tax returns. From the perusal of the returns; it
is not possible for any court to hold that; he was doing real estate business and she
had so much income to acquire property for farming. Therefore, the order passed
by the competent authority as well as the Tribunal are required to be set aside and
the matter is required to be remitted back to the competent authority only to give
its finding on the above question.

ISSUE III : IS THE REJECTION OF PLEA OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE VALID?

IS THERE ANY RELEVANCY OF THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF ARAV
SAHOO IN THE PRESENT CASE?

3.1 It is humbly submitted that the electronic evidence is not sufficient proof for a conviction.
But it is considered as a major relevant evidence which cannot be ignored. It adds that
convictions under the NDPS Act rely on possession (section 8C), transportation (sections 21
and 25), and conspiracy (section 29). “These are the key sections. For section 29, investigating
agencies rely on taking statements under section 67 (power to call for information) of the NDPS
Act to establish that there was a conspiracy. Here, they can get a confession or admission. For
sections 8C, 21 and 25, they will rely on the punchnama for actual discovery, seizure or
recovery of narcotics. Without the possession and seizure, it will not be corroborated enough.”

3.2 It also says that it remains to be seen if just electronic evidence can be considered clinching
enough to convict a person. “With the statement of witnesses it may be possible. The court
can even admit sim cards, emails, phone call records as evidence. So hypothetically, it
(conviction) may be possible, but we have yet to see a case like that.

11
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ISSUE IV : WHAT ARE THE BASIC GROUNDS ON WHICH SUPREME COURT

ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF ARAV SAHOO ?

4.1 It is humbly submitted before the respected Apex Court that the grounds on which this
petition is based are not qualified and relevant. Court does not, normally, interfere with an
order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is
equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously
and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of
this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
● Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence;
● Nature and gravity of the accusation;
● Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
● Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
● Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
● Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
● Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
● Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

12
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE I : WHETHER OR NOT ARAV SAHOO WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 20

(b) (ii) (c ), SECTION 25 AND SECTION 27 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 ?

1. It is respectfully argued in front of the Supreme Court that the incident that occurred in
July of 2019, in which substantial quantities of 298.20 kg of marijuana were allegedly
recovered, was sufficient on its own for the petitioner to be detained and convicted
under the Act. It has been demonstrated how the aforementioned basis is plagued by an
overwhelming number of legal flaws. A good cause for imposing a penalty under the
NDPS Act is the recovery of substantial amounts of marijuana in conjunction with the
face of a previous conviction under the Act.
2. As a result, the declaration that "the action under the ordinary law has not desisted him
from indulging in anti-social activities of dealing in Narcotic substances" that is made
in the counter-affidavit does not support the authority that is holding the individual. The
additional statement that can be found in the counter-affidavit, which states "he will not
refrain from engaging in this illegal trade despite the initiation of prosecution
proceedings against him under the various provisions of laws, specifically the Ndps
Act, 1985, is also to be rejected for the same reason because it is for the same reason
that he will not refrain from engaging in this illegal trade. These comments create the
impression that the authority that is holding the individual views the custody itself as a
more deterring penalty than the conviction that would be handed down in a legal
proceeding. This demonstrates that the person's thinking is all over the place1."

[ 1. 1 ] MENACE OF DRUG ABUSE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING

1
Asha Devi v. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of gujarat and Anr, AIR 1979 Cri LJ 203.

13
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. The genesis and development of the Indian drug trafficking scenario are closely
connected with the strategic and geographical location of India which has massive
inflow of heroin and hashish from across the Indo-Pak border originating from "Golden
Crescent" comprising of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan which is one of the major illicit
drug supplying areas of the world.3 On the North Eastern side of the country is the
"Gold Triangle" comprising of Burma, Laos and Thailand which is again one of the
largest sources of illicit opium in the world.' Nepal also"is a traditional source of
cannabis, both herbal and resinous.5 Cannabis is also of wide growth in some states of
India. As far as illicit drug trafficking from and through India is concerned, these three
sources of supply have been instrumental in drug trafficking. Prior to the enactment of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the statutory control over
narcotic drugs was exercised in India through a number of Central and State enactments.
The principal Central Acts were (a) the Opium Act, 1857, (b) the Opium Act, 1878 and
(c) the Dangerous Drugs Act, 19302.

[ 1. 2 ] Punishment of offences

4. The use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for scientific and medicinal
purposes is indispensable. For the preparation of a number of life saving drugs like
morphine, pethidine and tranquilisers, these drugs and substances are required. India is
one of the leading producers of opium in the world for medicinal and scientific
purposes. Due to the use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for scientific
and medicinal purposes, the production of the same cannot be banned together, but the
production can be controlled and regulated by the government to prevent illicit
trafficking and illicit use of the same.

[ 1. 3 ] A Serious Offence
5. In the case of Jinabhai kalabhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat, 1998,3 It was held by the
court that drug trafficking is an offence of serious nature which affects the social life of
common people. While interpreting section 20 of NDPS Act, the parliament made it
clear that the possession must be proved by the petitioner, the accused is liable under

2
Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut, AIR 1989 SCC 556
3
AIR 1998 GLR 1635

14
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

this section, there is a link between the illegal or contraband drug or articles and the
accused is established without doubt.

6. In the case of Mujeeb v. State of Kerala,4 it was interpreted by the court that the drug
trafficking is closely connected with the terrorist activities. The money which is earned
by trafficking must be used to conduct criminal and terrorist offences. In this sense it is
more dangerous for the safety of the common citizens of society.

ISSUE II : WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN ARAV

SAHOO AND THE OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS?

1. It has been respectfully argued in front of the honourable Supreme Court that the bills
and transaction details of the petitioner's bank account are evidence of financing for the
aforementioned ganja, and that this evidence alone is sufficient to show that there is a
connection or illegal controversy between the petitioner and the other accused persons. This
argument was made in light of the fact that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the
land. The petitioner has not provided any documentation to prove that he was engaged in
the real estate business or that he acquired the property out of his income, nor has he
provided documentation to show that the investment was made by him out of the income
he made from the trafficking of drugs.

2. The petitioner has provided copies of their federal and state income tax returns. After
reviewing the tax reports, it is clear that the court cannot come to the conclusion that
the defendant was engaged in the real estate business and that the plaintiff had sufficient
revenue to purchase land for farming. As a result, both the order that was given by the
competent authority and the order that was made by the Tribunal are necessary to be
overturned, and the matter is required to be remitted back to the competent authority
alone for it to make its finding on the aforementioned question5.

4
AIR 1999 KER 6241
5
Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1979 SCC 465

15
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[ 2. 1 ] Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy

3. In the case of Bollywood actress Rhea Chakraborty,2020 6,Ten accused were arrested
under section 8 (c) , read with section 20 (b) (iii), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the NDPS
Act. These pertain to alleged use and possession of cannabis and psychotropic
substances, funding illicit traffic and harbouring offenders as well as abetment and
criminal conspiracy, attempt and preparation of committing offences.

4. A criminal who has been convicted of drug trafficking is more likely to face additional
punishments, particularly when the crime was committed within the context of an
international operation. This may involve the confiscation of any and all assets
connected to the illegal drug trade, such as bank accounts, vehicles, or properties that
were utilised in the commission of the crime. When a defendant is sentenced to more
than one year in jail, it is common for the court to order the seizure of their assets. In
addition, because drug trafficking is a felony, those convicted of the crime may also be
subject to immigration consequences, including the possibility of deportation after they
have completed their prison sentence7.

5. The United Nations General Assembly has acknowledged that "despite continuing
increased efforts by States, relevant organisations, civil society, and non-governmental
organisations, the world drug problem" undermines socio-economic and political
stability as well as sustainable development8.

[ 2.2 ] Illicit Trafficking under NDPS

6. In the another case of Sajad C. v. State of Kerala, 20199Drug trafficking mainly affects
the youth section of society. The large number of youth in the community are the
victims of injurious drugs and are suffering from pernicious effects. Drug trafficking
also would tend to adversely affect the unity and integrity of the nation. Not only the

6
AIR 2020 SCC 2386
7
Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan AIR 1975 SCC 554
8
SK Sirajul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SCC78
9
AIR 2019 Crl. MC. No. 6436 of 2019.

16
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

adults but the juveniles are also being a victim of drug addiction and engaging under
the peddle of drug dealing.

[ 2.3 ] Section 20 in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
7. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plants and cannabis.Whoever, in
contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of
licence granted thereunder,(
a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State,
exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable 1[(i) where such contravention
relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and
(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),
(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with
both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small
quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with
fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be
liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two
lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgement,
impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.]

[ 2. 4 ] Section 25 in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

8. Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.

Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room,
enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the
commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this
Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence.

17
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

[ 2. 5 ] Sec 27 : Punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic

substance
9. Whoever, consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be punishable,
(a) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance consumed is cocaine, morphine,
diacetylmorphine or any other narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance as may be
specified in this behalf by the Central Government by notification in the Official
Gazette, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees; or with both; and
(b) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance consumed is other than those
specified in or under clause (a), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.]

ISSUE III : IS THE REJECTION OF PLEA OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE VALID?

IS THERE ANY RELEVANCY OF THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF ARAV
SAHOO IN THE PRESENT CASE?

1. It is respectfully argued here that the electronic evidence does not provide adequate
grounds for convicting someone. Yet, it is deemed to be a significant piece of pertinent
evidence that cannot be disregarded. It adds that possession (section 8C), transportation
(sections 21 and 25), and conspiracy are the bases for convictions under the NDPS Act
(section 29). "These are the most important parts. In order to demonstrate that there was
a conspiracy, investigative agencies use the power granted to them in section 67 of the
NDPS Act, which allows them to make statements. This section is referred to as
"section 29." In this location, they have the opportunity to obtain a confession or
admission. They will rely on the punchnama for the actual finding, seizure, or recovery
of narcotics in order to comply with clauses 8C, 21 and 25. It will not be sufficiently
corroborated without the possession and seizure of the evidence.
2. In addition, it states that it is yet unknown whether or not electronic evidence alone may
be regarded conclusive enough to convict a person of a crime. "Given the testimony of
witnesses, it is feasible that it will work. Even sim cards, emails, and the records of

18
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

phone calls might be accepted as evidence by the court. Hence, in theory, a conviction
is possible, but to our knowledge, no such instance has ever occurred in the real world10.

3. The NDPS Act prohibits certain operations and regulates certain machinery to control
trafficking. Section 8 of the act prohibits the operation of growing any coca plant or
gathering any portion of coca plant, cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant.
The production, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use,
consume, import inter-state, export inter-state, import in India, export from India or
tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance11,

4. The use of drugs for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent
provided by the provisions of this act and also nothing in this section shall apply to the
export of poppy straw for decorative purposes. Section 8A prohibits certain activities
relating to property derived from offence. Under Section 9 the Central Government has
the power to permit, control and regulate the cultivation of opium poppy and coca
plants12.

ISSUE IV: WHAT ARE THE BASIC GROUNDS ON WHICH SUPREME COURT
ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF ARAV SAHOO?

1 It is respectfully submitted to the esteemed Supreme Court that the grounds for this
petition are insufficient and irrelevant. Typically, the court does not intervene with a High
Court ruling granting or denying bail to the accused. Yet, it is also the responsibility of the
High Court to exercise its discretion prudently, thoughtfully, and in strict accordance with
the fundamental principles articulated in a multitude of decisions of this Court on the
subject. It is well-settled that, among other factors, the following must be considered when
evaluating a bail application: I whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused

10
SK. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SCC 395.
11
Role of Narcotic Control Bureau”, india image.nic.in.
12
M.C Mehanathan, “Law of Control on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance In India”, pp- 82 -83,
(2007).

19
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; and (v) character, behaviour, means, position,
and standing.

[ 4. 1 ] A Plea for the cancellation of bail

2. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an
individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order
of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of the High Court to
grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention
of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The
Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused
had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of
the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course
of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance
between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual
liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured
within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this
Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors that guide the
exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case-by-case basis. Inherent in
this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a
prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It
is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to
come to a conclusive finding13.

3. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an
appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is
thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application
of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus
necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there
existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed

13
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, AIR 2010 SCC 496

20
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the
punishment.”14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of United States of
Indus that:
1. DECLARE that, the petitioner is punishable under Section 27 for consumption of any
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance with the imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine of ten thousand rupees.
2. DECLARE that, the petitioner is punishable under Section 20 for involving in
commercial quantity with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than ten years with a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.
3. DECLARE that, the petitioner is punishable under Section 25 for allowing premises
to be used for commission of offence.

And pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall be duty bound forever to pray.

14
Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, AIR 2020 SCC 118.

21