The seriousness of the allegations, the quantity of the substance recovered, and the foreign status of the petitioner are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act seeking regular bail in SC No. 139/2019 registered under Sections 9A/25A/29 of the NDPS Act at police Station Crime Branch, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.01.2019, on the basis of secret information, petitioner Kelvin George Katindasa was intercepted at IGI airport while he was travelling to Dar-Es-Sallam via Doha and during search, 24.5kg of Pseudoephedrine was recovered.

3. In his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act, petitioner disclosed that he came to Delhi along with his brother Nagary and stayed at hotel Venus, Mahipalpur, Delhi and on 09.01.2019, Nagary asked him to go to INA market to collect the suitcase and thereafter petitioner collected the suitcase of Pseudoephedrine from Chinedu and Kelvin (petitioner) was supposed to hand over this suitcase to Nagary at Tanzania. On 18.02.2019 accused Nagary was also intercepted at Mumbai airport on the basis of LOC. Accused Nagary also accepted his guilt. The mobile phones of accused persons were examined and it was revealed that they were in touch with others and shows that they were the members of international drug syndicate and involved in drug trafficking.

4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. counsel for the respondent (NCB), perused the records of this case and the Status Report/Reply filed by the respondent (NCB).

5. It is mainly contended by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, after the recovery of alleged 5 packets, the contents of all the packets were transferred in a transparent polythene and mixed homogeneously and after that two samples of 25 gram each from the mixture were taken. He further submitted that the manner in which the samples were drawn was not as per law as the sample were not taken from each packet and this is totally a violation of law in drawing the sample of drugs.

6. He further submitted that the petitioner is a young person who has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that while issuing notice U/s 50 NDPS Act, the mandatory provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have not been followed. He further submitted that in the instant case the embargo of Section 37 NDPS Act is not applicable. He further submitted that the petitioner is having clean past antecedents and is not a previous convict and there is no other criminal record against him in any police station. He further submitted that the NCB (respondent) will take long time in concluding the matter, so no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bar.

7. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Judgment dated 13.03.2020, passed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1027/2015 titled as Amani Fidel Chris Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau.

(b) Ram Narayan Vs. State 2005 [2] JCC [Narcotics] 170.

(c ) Sujit Tiwari Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2020 (1) Crimes 141 (SC).

8. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the respondent (NCB) that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. He further submitted that the bail of the co-accused has been dismissed by this court vide order dated 24.11.2020. He further submitted that the petitioner is a part of drug syndicate dealing in drug trafficking and the petitioner is a foreigner and he may abscond, if released on bail.

9. Ld. counsel for the respondent (NCB) has relied upon the following judgments :

(a) State of Gujrat Vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Sheikh & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 50.

(b) State through Secretary, Central Narcotic Department, Lucknow Vs. Syed Amir Hussain (2002) 10 SCC 88.

(c ) Achint Navinbhai Patel alias Mahesh Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 529.

(d) Supdt. Narcotics Control Bureau Chennai Vs. R. Paulsamy 2001 SCC (Crl.) 648 (SC).

(e) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad-IT 2001(7) SC 560.

(f) Intelligence Officer, Narco