Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Amit Ranjan – Petitioner
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1189 of 2020
Decided On : 23-05-2022
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23, 29, 67, 37, 68F(1), 53A, 30, 3, 20(b), 21, 22, 27A, 27B, 28 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 25 - Banker - Freezing Order - Narcotics Control Bureau - Applied For Anticipatory Bail - Applicant has further submitted that he learnt of present case from ICICI Bank when banker communicated to applicant of receipt of a freezing order of his account as issued by Narcotics Control Bureau, whereafter, he learnt of investigation in instant case and applied for anticipatory bail, which however, was declined and thus, applicant surrendered before Court and was arrested by Narcotics Control Bureau Officer and was sent for one day police custody and then to judicial custody - During investigation, applicant was pressurized and compelled to write his disclosure statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 as dictated by Investigation Officer, whereafter, applicant filed a retraction application.
Finding of the Court :
Narcotics Control Bureau during course of consideration of present bail application to bring forth transportation of any narcotic or psychotropic substance from applicant to co-accused persons through K.K. Pharma to Vinay Pharmaceuticals nor has Narcotics Control Bureau placed on record any document to show connection of applicant with K.K. Pharma Solutions through whom allegedly psychotropic substances were sent to Vinay Pharmaceuticals i.e. to co-accused Manish Mohan - That there were monetary transactions between co-accused Pulkit Kumar and applicant, per se, also do not indicate that said monetary transaction was in relation to any illicit trafficking of narcotic or psychotropic substances - It is essential to observe that aspects of CDR details and alleged connection between K.K. Pharma Solutions and Vinay Pharmaceuticals and applicant and co-accused persons and monetary transactions between them being in relation to illicit trafficking of narcotic or psychotropic substances can only be gauged at trial - In view thereof, there having been no recovery of any alleged narcotic or psychotropic substances of a commercial quantity having been effected from applicant and apart from confessional statements made by applicant and co-accused which confessional statement made by applicant has already been retracted, presently, this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that applicant is not guilty of commission of said offences and in view of his clean antecedents that he is not likely to commit any offence whilst on bail - Applicant in instant case is allowed to be released on bail on filing a bail bond in sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with two sureties of like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court with directions to applicant.
Result : Bail disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Anu Malhotra, J.
1. The applicant- Amit Ranjan, S/o Sh. Nabin Kumar, vide the present application seeks the grant of bail in complaint case bearing SC No. 81/2019 registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23 & 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, 1985) dated 12.02.2019 submitting to the effect that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case, that there has been no recovery of any narcotic nor psychotropic substance from the applicant whatsoever. The applicant has submitted that he is a Software Engineer with a B.Tech degree and the Director of M/s NGA Infotech (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. with its registered office at SBail. 564, 3rd Floor, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 and that he has his corporate/working office at Parasi, Near Chaturbhuj Asthan Bagan Bigah, Nalanda, Bihar-803118, from where he successfully ran the businesses of online IT services, BPO, Web designing and software development and has also dealt in the sales of mobile phones and mobile accessories through Flipkart and Snapdeal and has never been involved in any illegal activities.
2. The applicant has further submitted that he learnt of the present case on 13.02.2019 from the ICICI Bank when the banker communicated to the applicant of receipt of a freezing order of his account as issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, whereafter, he learnt of the investigation in the instant case and applied for anticipatory bail, which however, was declined and thus, the applicant surrendered on 06.09.2019 before the Court of the learned ASJ (Special Judge, NDPS), PHC, New Delhi and was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau Officer and was sent for one day police custody and then to judicial custody, whereafter, the supplementary complaint was filed against him qua the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and during investigation, the applicant was pressurized and compelled to write his disclosure statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 as dictated by the Investigation Officer, whereafter, the applicant filed a retraction application dated 10.10.2019 retracting from the same submitting to the effect that his disclosure statement had been given under duress and coercion.
3. The applicant has further submitted that his subsequent bail application seeking grant of regular bail was declined by the learned ASJ vide order dated 14.05.2020. The applicant has submitted that the prosecution version is based on some secret information received by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi pursuant to which a complaint bearing No. NCB/24/DZU/2018 under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23 & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 dated 16.08.2018 was registered and some contraband goods were recovered from Gaurav Mehta (Accused No. 1) from Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, whereafter he was arrested on 21.01.2018 and during interrogation he disclosed the name of Bhaskar Khatnani (Accused No. 2), who further disclosed the name of Manish Mohan (Accused No. 3), who further disclosed the name of Pulkit Kumar (Accused No. 4) and since the petitioner has had some IT business relations and transactions with Pulkit Kumar, on the ground of suspicion and disclosure statements made by other co-accused whilst in police custody, the applicant was made accused No. 5 in the said complaint by the Investigating Agency.
4. It has been submitted by the applicant that the NCB team reached at the office of DHL Express, at 71/3, Rama Road, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and asked about the parcel which was booked by Sh. Gaurav Mehta and instructed to the staff of DHL to bring the parcel and on opening the same, the said packet/parcel the officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau allegedly found alleged psychotropic tablets and thereafter, the Narcotics Control Bureau conducted a raid at the office of Gaura
Point of Law : Service providers as defined under Section 79 of the Technology Act but the said business was only a facade and camouflage for more sinister activity. In this situation, Section 79 wil....
The judgment emphasizes the principles of innocence until proven guilty, the need for substantive evidence to establish guilt, and the limitations on the admissibility of disclosure statements withou....
The inadmissibility of certain statements made to a police officer and the requirement of foundational material to establish the accused's involvement in the offences.
The main legal point established is the inadmissibility of retracted statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act and the need for corroboration of evidence in drug-related cases.
Statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act are inadmissible being hit by Section 25 IEA, and the only way to make any part of such statements admissible is by way of Section 27 IEA which creates a....
A confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. Even in cases involving commercia....
The inadmissibility of confessions made to NDPS officers by the accused and the overriding of the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act by the fundamental right guaranteed under ....
The recovery of contraband, admissibility of section 67 statement, and relevance of forensic mobile extraction report and chats were central legal points established in the judgment.
The court ruled that reliance on inadmissible co-accused statements cannot sustain a conviction, leading to the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that statements of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, impacting the prosecution's case for bail under the NDPS Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
