The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be carefully considered, and there is no straight jacket formula for granting bail, as it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Sethi, J. - Vide this order I shall dispose of a bail application filed u/s. 439 CrPC by the petitioner Nagary Ally Kombo in Case No. SC 139/2019 u/s. 9A/25A r/w. Section 29 of NDPS Act.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that presumption of innocence lies in favour of the petitioner till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of petitioner fleeing from justice as his passport was seized at the time of investigation by the IO at NCB on the date of arrest.

3. It is next submitted that at the time of exercise of bail, the nature of allegations and gravity and seriousness of the offence, nature of punishment, character and nature of evidence, chances of tampering with the prosecution evidence and chances of fleeing from justice and, status of the accused person and all the cumulative factors are required to be considered while granting bail and bail jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a capricious and arbitrary manner depriving the petitioner of his right to secure liberty by following the procedure established by law.

4. It is further submitted that NCB officials after conducting the investigation, have filed the police report before the Ld. Trial court and the investigation stands completed, and the petitioner is no more required by the investigating agency and since the matter is at the initial stage of prosecution evidence, there is very likelihood that the conclusion of the trial will take time. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family consisting of his old and ailing widowed mother, wife and 1-1/2 years old child and due to his incarceration, the entire family is suffering. The petitioner is a law abiding, peace loving person and has clean antecedents. The petitioner has been arrested only on the disclosure statement of the co-accused. He has been falsely implicated in connivance with the investigating agency. The petitioner had filed a regular bail application before the Ld. Trial Court, however, the same was dismissed vide dated 13.8.2019. It is prayed that since the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated and is not required for the purpose of investigation, he be, therefore, released on bail in the interest of justice.

5. Ld. Advocate for the NCB has opposed the bail application on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

6. I have considered the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases in support of his submissions:-

i). Sailesh R. Shah v. The Intelligence Officer, NCB, Eastern Regional Unit,2002 SCCOnlineCal 158 ,

ii). Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2001) 5 SCC 34 ,

iii). SC Legal Aid Committee representing Under trial Prisoners v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 ,

iv) Manoj Kumar v. Revenue Intelligence,2015 SCCOnlineDel 7830 ,

v). niranjan Jayantilal Shah v. Dte. Of Revenue Intelligence,2013 SCCOnLineDel 4608 ,

vi). Rajesh Sharma v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, B.A. No. 1590/2018, decided on 16.11.2018.

vii) Sartori Livio v. State (Delhi Admin) B.A. No. 89/2005, decided on 22.02.2005,

viii) Lambert Kroger v. Enforcement Directorate, Crl.M.(M) No. 2580/99, decided on 28.02.2020

ix) S. Hussain & Mohammed Hussain & anr. v. The Sr. Intelligence Officer, Dte. of Revenue Intelligence Cell, Tuticorin, Crl. A. (MD) No. 812 of 2004, decided on 30.04.2010.

7. I have gone through the above case laws. However, the same are distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances stated therein. It is well settled that judicial precedent cannot be followed as a statute and has to be applied with reference to the facts of the case involved in it. The ratio of any decision has to be understood in the background of the facts of that case. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every o