IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR, J.
AMARJEET SINGH – Petitioner
versus
DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE. – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. No. 673 of 2009
Decided on : May 29, 2009
Davendra Singh v. Kewal Ram & Ors. - Bail Application - NDPS Act - Section 21/27A and 29 - Petitioner arrested by DRI officials on 4th April 2008 and in custody since then - DRI alleged that on 3rd April 2008 intelligence was gathered through a reliable source at 1600 hours by Shri Raman, I.O., DRI that a person would be coming in an Opel Astra car carrying narcotics drugs concealed in a suitcase which would be transferred to another person who would also come to the designated place of delivery at 1900 hours in his cherry colour Tata Safari car - Petitioner and Amarjeet Singh apprehended and both vehicles taken in control - Petitioner denied allegations and claimed that the notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was a typed notice, the font size of the letter of the notice as well as the panchnama was the same and printed out from the same printer - Petitioner retracted his confession at the first available opportunity on 20th May 2008 and apart from the retracted confession there was no material to connect the Petitioner with the crime - Court held that the DRI had made numerous false statements in the panchnama and preceding it in the notice served under Section 50 NDPS Act - Court directed the Petitioner to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was arrested by the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ("DRI") on 4th April 2008 and has remained in custody since then. The DRI alleged that on 3rd April 2008 intelligence was gathered through a reliable source at 1600 hours by Shri Raman, I.O., DRI that a person would be coming in an Opel Astra car carrying narcotics drugs concealed in a suitcase which would be transferred to another person who would also come to the designated place of delivery at 1900 hours in his cherry colour Tata Safari car. The said information was reduced into writing by IO Raman Mishra who was the officer of the DRI at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The Petitioner and Amarjeet Singh were apprehended and both vehicles were taken in control. The Petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that the notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was a typed notice, the font size of the letter of the notice as well as the panchnama was the same and printed out from the same printer. The Petitioner retracted his confession at the first available opportunity on 20th May 2008 and apart from the retracted confession there was no material to connect the Petitioner with the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the DRI had made numerous false statements in the panchnama and preceding it in the notice served under Section 50 NDPS Act. The Court directed the Petitioner to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Issues: None
Ratio Decidendi: None
Final Decision: The Court directed the Petitioner to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
1. This is an application for regular bail in the case titled “Davendra Singh v. Kewal Ram & Ors.” S.C. No.61-A/08 under Sections 21/27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 („NDPS Act?) pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, New Delhi. The Petitioner was arrested by the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence („DRI?) on 4th April 2008 and has remained in custody since then.
2. The case of the DRI as stated in its complaint filed in the Court of the Special Judge, NDPS, By Davender Singh, Intelligence Officer (I.O) is that on 3rd April 2008 intelligence was gathered through a reliable source at 1600 hours by Shri Raman, I.O., DRI that a person would be coming in an Opel Astra car (No.HR-26K-9005) carrying narcotics drugs concealed in a suitcase which would be transferred to another person who would also come to the designated place of delivery at 1900 hours in his cherry colour Tata Safari car. The said information was reduced into writing by IO Raman Mishra who was the officer of the DRI at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The further narration in the aforementioned complaint filed by the DRI is that on the basis of the said information a team of officers of the DRI was constituted. It is stated that two witnesses were called at around 1700 hours on 3rd April 2008 and requested to remain present during the possible interception and subsequent search proceedings. These two were Shri Kali Charan and Shri Satish, both working as sweepers with the CPWD. It is stated that at 1715 hours the raiding party left for the spot which was on the main (outer ring) road in front of Capital Court, Munirka, New Delhi. The DRI team mounted a surveillance.
4. The complaint further states that at about 1700 hours one Opel Astra car bearing registration No. HR-26 K-9005 came to the designated place. The driver of the said car parked it on the main road in front of Capital Court, Munirka. At around 1915 hours one cherry colour Tata Safari bearing registration No. CH 03 U 9626 reached there. The driver of the Tata Safari stopped his vehicle just in front of the Opel Astra. A person aged about 37-38 years got out of the Tata Safari and proceeded towards the Opel Astra car. The driver of the Opel Astra car then came out of his vehicle. He opened the boot of his car took out one black colour suitcase from it. When he was about to hand over the said suitcase to the person who had alighted from the Tata Safari, the officers of the DRI immediately apprehended both the persons and took both the vehicles in their control. It is stated that the driver of the Opel Astra car identified himself as Kewal Ram (Accused No.1). The person who alighted from the Tata Safari car identified himself as Amarjeet Singh (Accused No.2), the petitioner herein.
5. It is stated that “on persistent questioning by the officers” accused No.2 admitted that the suitcase contained contraband narcotic drugs concealed below its false bottom and that it had been brought by the accused No.1 from Punjab. Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was served upon both accused persons separately. Both expressed their desire “by writing in their own handwriting on the body of the said notice that they do not require the presence of any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate to carry out the searches and in fact any officer of the DRI can carry out the searches.” They also stated in writing on the notice itself that “since the place of interception was very crowded and the same was not considered to be a safe place to carry out their searches as well as their vehicles, they requested the officers for taking them along with their belongings and vehicle to any safer place to carry out further proceedings.”
6. It is stated that thereafter the DRI officers along with the witnesses and the accused persons and the vehicles were brought to the office of DRI at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The two ve
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.