The judgment established the importance of reasonable grounds to believe the accused's guilt, the inadmissibility of uncorroborated disclosure statements, and the consideration of the accused's medical condition in bail decisions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 108/2015 under Sections 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Crime Branch.

2. The case of the prosecution is that source information was received on 21.07.2015 that one Parvez, a resident of Bihar along with one Manoj bring Ganja in a truck and sell the same to several people. It was informed that Parvez would be bringing Ganja and would be supplying the same to one Javed.

3. Based on the source information, a raiding party was prepared, raid was conducted. At the designated spot, two persons were found standing near a Maruti Swift Car and some bags were being loaded in the Swift Car. The informer pointed out to the two persons and identified them as Parvez and Javed. They were apprehended. Five bags containing 20 Kg. each of Ganja were recovered.

4. Parvez is alleged to have made a disclosure stating that his source was one Manoj. Manoj has neither been identified nor apprehended till date. Javed is alleged to have made a disclosure statement that he was collecting Ganja for supplying to the petitioner Dalip Singh @ Langda.

5. As per the prosecution, Investigation of the call detail record shows call connection between petitioner and the co-accused Javed. Investigation also revealed that the petitioner has been depositing money in two accounts; one with ICICI Bank and other with IDBI Bank. Based on this, chargesheet has been filed and petitioner was apprehended and is in custody since 11.08.2015 and has remained in custody since then apart from being released on bail on some occasions on medical grounds. Presently, petitioner is on interim bail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that apart from the alleged disclosure statement, there is no evidence or material to connect the petitioner to the subject offence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only evidence being relied upon is the alleged disclosure statement of co-accused, call connection between the petitioner and Javed who was apprehended from the spot and the allegations that he has been depositing money in two accounts.

8. Learned counsel submits that merely because petitioner had telephonic conversation with the accused, is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the subject offence. Further he submits that the prosecution has failed to connect either of the two accounts with the subject offence or any of the other accused.

9. Learned counsel submits that as per the investigation, the account with ICICI Bank is in the name of one Ratnakar Rout and the account with IDBI Bank belongs to one Raju Kumar and prosecution has filed to connect Ratnakar Raut or Raju Kumar to the subject offence. Further he submits that the prosecution has filed to establish that the petitioner has been depositing money in ICICI Bank.

10. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is HIV Positive and his medical condition is not well. Further he submits that the petitioner has been in custody for over three years without any material coming against the petitioner.

11. On perusal of the record, it is prima facie seen that there are two major missing links in the case of the prosecution. There is no link established by the prosecution between the petitioner with the alleged supplier Manoj. Further the entire case of the prosecution, in so far as petitioner is concerned is circumstantial i.e. based solely on disclosure statement of a co-accused which is per se not admissible without there being any corroboration. Prosecution has not been able to establish any connection between the subject offence and the bank accounts, where the petitioner is alleged to have been depositing money or with the holders of those accounts. Merely because the petitioner has been having telephonic conversation with the co-accused, would not be sufficient to hold that petitioner is guilty of the subject offence. There is no recovery made from the petitioner.