Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Dinesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2543 of 2021 Bail Appln. 828 of 2022
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Bail - NDPS Act - 471/474/482 IPC - 20, 25 & 29 NDPS Act - [Section 471/474/482 IPC, Section 20, 25 & 29 NDPS Act] - The court discussed the limitations on the grant of bail for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A and also for offences involving a commercial quantity. The court also emphasized the concept of possession as occurring in Section 20 to 22 of NDPS Act and the involvement of the accused based on ownership of the truck and Call Detail Records.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the arrest of the petitioners for the possession and transportation of contraband marijuana. The accused were apprehended with 16 bags of contraband marijuana in a truck, and the ownership and involvement of the accused were contested during the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were involved in the possession and transportation of contraband based on the ownership of the truck and Call Detail Records. The court dismissed the bail applications, emphasizing the limitations on the grant of bail for NDPS Act offences and the concept of possession under the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership and involvement of the accused in the possession and transportation of contraband, as well as the grounds for grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limitations on the grant of bail for NDPS Act offences and the concept of possession under the Act, and found that the accused were involved based on ownership of the truck and Call Detail Records.
Final Decision: The bail applications were dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - Separate Bail applications 2543/2021 and 828/2022 have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners Dinesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar Pandey @ Anand Panday under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 202/2019, under Section 471/474/482 IPC and Section 20, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act, registered at PS Crime Branch, Rohini North.
2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, on 11.07.2019, acting upon a secret information regarding supply of contraband marijuana i.e. Ganja in Delhi, a trap was laid near Gate No. 1, Bawana Industrial Area. The person who got down from driver side of the truck bearing No. NL-07A-7611 was identified as Dinesh and the one who got down from the other side was identified as Mohd. Kazim @ Laddan by the secret informer and were apprehended by the raiding party. After completion of legal formalities, formal search of the truck was made and 16 bags of contraband marijuana i.e. Ganja were recovered from the said truck, which weighed 800 Kgs. Accordingly, FIR No. 202/2019, under Section 20/25/29 NDPS Act was registered and both the accused Dinesh Kumar and Mohd. Kazim @ Laddan were arrested at the spot.
3. During investigation, Mohd. Kazim @ Laddan disclosed that the recovered Ganja belonged to one Salaam Mansoori, R/o Ranhola, Delhi and Anwar S/o Karim Khan. Further, petitioner Dinesh Kumar disclosed that the alleged truck belonged to petitioner Vinod Kumar Pandey, R/o Mirzapur, U.P. Later on, accused Salaam Mansoori was also arrested on 19.09.2019 in the present FIR. The Chassis number of the truck was found to be tampered/erased and the documents of the truck were found to be fake. Accordingly, sections 471/474/482 IPC were invoked. Vinod Kumar Pandey was initially declared PO on 06.02.2020. Subsequently, it was revealed during investigation that the petitioner/accused Vinod Kumar Pandey was in J.C. in District Jail Mirzapur, U.P. in another case and was formally arrested in the present FIR on 24.02.2021.
4. During investigation, it was also revealed from the owner of the truck that the documents regarding sale and purchase were executed in favour of Vinod Kumar Pandey, who tampered with the registration number, chassis number and engine number to hide its identity. Besides above, on the basis of CDR analysis, mobile numbers 7233873693 & 8765237235 used by Vinod Kumar Pandey were found in constant touch with Anwar Ali (Mobile No.6371414527 & 8480491834), who was the main supplier of the contraband from Orissa and has been declared Proclaimed Offender in the present FIR. Further these numbers were also found in touch with mobile numbers of petitioner Dinesh Kumar i.e. 9696670170 & 6305755320.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Vinod Kumar Pandey submits that the accused has been falsely implicated and made following submissions for consideration of bail:
i. That mobile numbers 7233873693 & 8765237235 were registered in the name of one Sandeep and Satanoo Yadav and no evidence has been led to indicate in case the aforesaid numbers were being used by petitioner Vinod Kumar Pandey. Reliance is further placed upon Shravan Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Application No. 175/2018, decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Garg, vide order dated 12.03.2018. It is urged that Call Detail Records may not be enough to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioner.
ii. The ownership of the truck in question from which the contraband was recovered, has been further denied on behalf of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the alleged documents of sale were never notarized in the presence of petitioner Vinod Kumar Pandey even as per the statement of Notary Public. Further, the document is stated to have been executed on 04.06.2019, though the attestation as per the statement of the Notary Public, has been made on 14.06.2019.
iii. The case of the petitioner is claimed to be on parity with Salaam Mansoori, who is stated to have been released on bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dat
AI
The limitations on the grant of bail for NDPS Act offences and the concept of possession under the Act are crucial in determining the involvement of the accused and the grounds for grant of bail.
The court ruled that in narcotic offenses, knowledge of possession and conscious possession are crucial in determining bail eligibility, with emphasis on the applicant's burden to prove innocence and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act and the interpretation of the concept of possession as occurring in Section 20 to 22 of NDPS Ac....
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court clarified that 'conscious possession' under the NDPS Act necessitates awareness and control over the contraband, which was not proven in this case.
Bail under the NDPS Act requires substantial evidence indicating the accused is not guilty, prioritizing public safety and the integrity of judicial processes over personal liberty.
Possession of contraband requires awareness; presumption of conscious possession arises when transporting substantial quantities, limiting bail options under NDPS Act.
Statements of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, and mere association does not establish a prima facie case for bail denial under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in restricting bail for offences involving commercial quantity of narcotics. The court emphasi....
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
