Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
JOYCE KAROUNG - Petitioner
Versus
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 1086 of 2018
Decided on : 02-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satish Tamta, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Jubair Ahmed Khan, Mr. Tamin Qadri and Mr. Shariq, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda with Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Advs.
The court emphasized the significance of the accused's involvement in the alleged offense and the potential risk to society in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, leading to the denial of bail to the petitioner.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Bail - Sections 21(C), 23(C), 29 - The court discussed the provisions of the NDPS Act, including Section 37 and Section 67, and their interpretations. The court highlighted the importance of balancing the liberty of the accused with the interest of society in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The court emphasized the significance of the accused's involvement in the alleged offense and the potential risk to society, leading to the denial of bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in a case related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) based on the contention of being falsely implicated and lack of material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offense. The case involved the exchange of trolley bags containing drugs between the co-accused and the petitioner's alleged involvement in directing the exchange.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's alleged involvement in the exchange of drugs and the subsequent arrest of another co-accused based on the petitioner's disclosure indicated a prima facie case against the petitioner. The court balanced the liberty of the accused with the interest of society, considering the lethal nature of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and denied bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged involvement in the exchange of drugs, the admissibility of statements given by co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the application of Section 37 regarding the grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37 and Section 67, and the balancing of the accused's liberty with the interest of society in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed, and the petitioner was denied bail based on the prima facie case against the petitioner and the potential risk to society in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The petitioner seeks regular bail in Complaint Case No. 395/2017 pertaining to Case No. VIII/20/DZU/2017, titled as “NCB Vs. Fernanda Rengel Gregada & Ors.” under Section 21(C)/23(C)/29 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS ACT for short).
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence in respect of which the complaint has been filed. Further, it is contended that there is no recovery of any contraband from the petitioner and the petitioner is sought to be roped in solely based on the statement of the co-accused, allegedly recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has exonerated herself in the statement allegedly recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
3. Subject complaint has been filed under Sections 21(C), 23(C) and 29 of NDPS Act contending that consequent to information received from reliable source, a team was constituted to conduct search and seizure proceedings. On 15.05.2017 at about 8.30 a.m., the team left the office of Delhi Zonal Unit (DZU) and reached near Hotel Toronto, Pahar Ganj at about 9.10 a.m. On reaching the Hotel it was put under surveillance. At about 10.15 a.m., one woman similar to the one mentioned in the information, arrived at the Hotel with one black colour trolley bag. After the woman entered the hotel, the officer enquired about her from the person at the reception, who revealed the name of the person as Fernanda Rengel Grageda (co-accused). The officers waited outside the hotel.
4. At about 18.05 hours, one northeastern woman is alleged to have arrived at the hotel reception holding one blue colour trolley bag and got booked a room for her. The northeastern woman had booked and checked into Room No. B – 1. Fernanda, the first referred woman had booked room No. C – 4.
5. The team of the officers waited inside the room, opposite to room No. C – 4. At about 18.25 hours, the northeastern woman knocked the room No. C – 4 and entered the room along with the blue colour trolley bag. The NCB team thereafter knocked at room No. C – 4 and entered the same and intercepted both the women who were allegedly exchanging their trolley bags.
6. The northeastern woman identified as Lhinpichong Kipgen was holding a note of 10 rupee (Sl. No.523J57). When Lhinpichong Kipgen was enquired about the 10-rupee note, she disclosed that this was given to her by one woman named Joyce Karoung (petitioner herein) who told her to show this 10-rupee note to Fernanda to get the bag of drugs.
7. On opening the black trolley bag, a secret counterpart was found, wherefrom 3.2 kg. Cocaine was allegedly recovered. The blue colour bag was found empty and as allegedly stated by Lhinpichong Kipgen this bag was given to her by the petitioner who told her to exchange this bag and to get the bag of drugs from Fernanda. It is contended that as informed by Lhinpichong Kipgen, the bag of drugs was to be given to Joyce (petitioner) at Bikaner Shop, Greater Kailash-II.
8. At the time when search and seizure proceedings were going on, it is alleged that Lhinpichong Kipgen was getting continuous calls from the mobile phone of Joyce who directed Lhinpichong Kipgen to leave the hotel after receiving the bag of drugs and to reach Bikaner Shop, G.K-II.
9. The NCB Team along with Lhinpichong Kipgen left Hotel Toronto for Bikaner Shop at G.K. –II to intercept Joyce (petitioner,) who was allegedly to receive the bag of cocaine as per the version of Lhinpichong Kipgen. On reaching the Bikaner Shop, G.K.-II it was found that Joyce (petitioner) was already standing there. She was identified by Lhinpichong Kipgen. It is contended that on oral discussion, the petitioner Joyce disclosed that the bag of drugs was to be delivered to one Nigerian person named Stephen.
10. On the directions of the NCB team, Joyce telephoned someone for sending Stephen to coll
