Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Kuldeep Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Govt.Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 3321 of 2020
Decided On : 11-02-2022
Raghav Mahajan, Advocate, Rajni Gupta, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'reasonable grounds to believe' for granting bail under the NDPS act, emphasizing the stringent parameters for bail in cases involving drug offences.
Headnote:
NDPS - Bail Application - Section 37 of NDPS act - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - [20/29 NDPS act, 37 NDPS act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS act, which regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offences under the NDPS act. The court emphasized the stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS act, requiring 'reasonable grounds to believe' that the accused has not committed an offence and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The court also highlighted the interpretation of the standard of 'reasonable grounds to believe' as something more than prima facie grounds, requiring substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 37 of NDPS act seeking regular bail in a case involving the recovery of Charas. The petitioner was apprehended with 1.2 Kg of Charas, and the charges were framed against him for offences under Section 20/29 of the NDPS act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application lacked merit and dismissed it, emphasizing the stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS act and the requirement of 'reasonable grounds to believe' that the accused has not committed an offence and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.
Issues: The issues raised included procedural violations in the recovery process, arrest memo preparation, and testimonial discrepancies. The petitioner's counsel also relied on past judgments to support the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of 'reasonable grounds to believe' for granting bail under the NDPS act and highlighted the stringent parameters for bail in cases involving drug offences.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application, stating that it lacked merit and expressing no opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 37 of NDPS act read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 104/2019 under Section 20/29 of the NDPS act registered at P.S. Crime Branch, (Central) Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.04.2019, SI Vikrant Singh received an information about two persons namely Kuldeep Sharma (petitioner herein) & Sonu Pandit, who used to supply Charas, would come in car No. HP 58 B 5006, to supply Charas to someone near Majnu Ka Tila, Outer Ring Road, Opposite Water Works Colony Delhi. The said information was reduced into writing vide DD No. 15 dated 22.04.2019 and a trap was laid near Majnu Ka Tila, Outer Ring Road, Opposite Water Works Colony Delhi.
3. at about 07:10 p.m. two persons namely Moti Lal @ Sonu Pandit S/o Thori Lal and present petitioner Kuldeep Sharma S/o Gopal Krishan were apprehended. Notice U/s 50 of the NDPS act were served to them separately and their legal rights were explained to them. after their refusal, they were cursorily searched in the presence of aCP/STaRS-II, Crime Branch and total 1.2 Kg. Charas was recovered from the possession of petitioner Kuldeep Sharma.
4. accordingly, present FIR No. 104/2019 U/s 20/29 NDPS act was registered at PS Crime Branch and said accused persons were interrogated and arrested in the present case and vehicle Gypsy No. HP 58 B 5006 was seized alongwith the documents.
5. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. aPP for the State, perused the Status Report and the records of this case carefully.
6. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has not followed the due procedure for taking the samples. He further submitted that as per the prosecution two samples of 25 grams each were taken out which were given Mark 'a' and 'B' and the remaining material was put together and was given Mark 'C' and it is not clear as to from which pieces allegedly recovered from the petitioner the samples were taken. He further submitted that out of two drawn samples only sample 'a' was sent for testing to FSL and the samples were not withdrawn from each of the pieces recovered and he further argued that the recovery was not such huge because of which the entire recovered charas could not be sent to FSL for testing and there is a clear cut violation of standing order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
7. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the arrest memo prepared by the IO is in contravention of Section 41 B of the Cr.P.C. as it does not bear any signature of either the relative of the petitioner or any respectable person of the society. He further submitted that the procedure prescribed U/s 42 of the NDPS act has not been followed and the notice U/s 50 was made after contraband was alleged to have been recovered from the accused and he was forced to write his statement. He further submitted that no serious efforts were made to join the public witnesses despite having more than two hours at their disposal. He further submitted that there are discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the benefit should go to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has clean past antecedents.
8. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs. State of Goa, Secretariat 1993 aIR 1456 .
(b) Javed a. Bhat Vs. Union of India 2007 Cri.LJ 3145.
(c ) Judgment dated 13.03.2020, passed by this Court in Crl. appeal No. 1027/2015 titled as amani Fidel Chris Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau.
(d) Judgment dated 2nd July, 2012 passed by this Court in Crl. appeal No. 909/2005 titled as Basant Rai Vs. State.
(e) Judgment dated 28.05.2015 passed by this Court in Crl. appeal No. 1113/2011 titled as Edward Khimani Kamau Vs. The Narcotics Control Bureau.
(f) Ghewar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 2008
