SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Satnam Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appl. No.6 Of 2023, Bail Appl. No.2919 Of 2021, Bail Appl. No.2893 Of 2022
Decided On : 01-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Sahni, APP with SI Dharmender, Spl. Cell, Rohini.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles for release on bail based on the duration of incarceration and the nature of the offence, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court legal aid committee representing Under trial Prisoners v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Bail Applications - Section 21/22/29/61/85 NDPS Act - The court discussed the provisions of section 21(c) and section 29 of the NDPS Act, which prescribe punishment for contravention involving commercial quantity and abetment and criminal conspiracy, respectively. The court also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court legal aid committee representing Under trial Prisoners v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, which provides guidelines for release on bail based on the duration of incarceration and the nature of the offence.

Fact of the Case:

The bail applications were filed by the applicants seeking bail for offences punishable under section 21/22/29/61/85 NDPS Act. The case involved the arrest of three accused for possession and supply of heroin, and the subsequent investigation and charge framing.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused had been in judicial custody for an approximate period of 7 years and referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to grant bail based on the duration of incarceration and the nature of the offence.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be granted bail considering the duration of their incarceration and the serious nature of the offences they were charged with.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court legal aid committee representing Under trial Prisoners v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, which provide guidelines for release on bail based on the duration of incarceration and the nature of the offence.

Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused persons on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and subject to specific conditions related to their travel, communication, appearance before the trial court, and change of residential address or mobile number.

JUDGMENT :

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.) :—

The present bail applications have been filed under section 439 Cr. P.C. seeking bail by the applicants namely Satnam Singh, Manjit Singh, and Krishna Devi for offences punishable under section 21/22/29/61/85 NDPS Act in case FIR No. 10/2016 dated 18.03.2016 registered at PS Special Cell.

2. The bail applications filed by Manjeet Singh; Satnam Singh and Krishna Devi before the Ld. Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi in case titled “State v. Manjeet Singh” were rejected vide a detailed order dated 09.07.2021; 16.07.2022 and 23.08.2022 respectively.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on receipt of a secret information, FIR No. 10/2016 got registered on 18.03.2016 at PS Special Cell under sections 21/61/85 NDPS Act, 1985 against the three accused namely Satnam Singh @ Banti, Manjit Singh, and Krishna Devi. It is alleged in the FIR that on 17.03.2016 one secret informer informed the S.I. (special cell) that ‘one man namely Manjeet, who is a resident of Jalandhar, Punjab, does a business of supplying heroin in Delhi from Haridwar, will come at Mukarba Chowk Delhi between 9:45 pm-10:45 pm to give the consignment of heroin to his contact. It was informed that this person namely Manjeet will come in his Fortuner car’. This information was conveyed to ACP Special who, on receipt of this information immediately gave orders to conduct a raid and take appropriate action. At around 9 pm at the instructions of Insp. Attar Singh a raiding party consisting of S.I. Bijender Singh along with HC Hawa Singh, HC Suresh, Ct. Devender, Ct. Parvej Alam, and Ct. Parveen along with the secret informant reached the Mukarba flyover, at about 9:50 pm SI Bijender Singh briefed his accompanying staff of the raiding party and spread the staff on the blockade. At about 10 pm one white colour Fortuner car stopped and Manjeet came out from the car. At about 10:15 pm S.I. Bijender alongwith the accompanied staff went to Manjeet. SI told Manjeet about the secret information he received about him doing the business of supplying heroin in Delhi from Haridwar. Manjeet was told that, given the facts, there was every possibility of recovery of contraband from him and therefore his search was to be conducted. Having informed this Manjeet was also made aware of his legal right of giving his search before the nearest gazetted officer or magistrate. He was also informed that he could take a search of any member of the raiding party before his search. In this regard written notice under section 50 NDPS Act was served upon Manjeet, and the contents of the notice were made understood to him. Manjeet did not express his desire to be searched before any gazetted officer or magistrate or to take search of any member of the raiding party before his search. The refusal was recorded by SI Bijender. Thereafter SI Bijender Singh took his cursory search but no contraband was recovered from his bodily search. The SI then conducted a search of the Fortuner car and one green coloured bag having transparent polythene inside it was found which was having light brown coloured powder which was checked with a testing kit and it was found to be heroin. On weighing upon an electronic scale, heroin in polythene was found 1 Kg. The polythene was marked A. Out of this quantity 2 samples of 5 gms heroin each were taken out and were marked A1 and A2. The remaining 990 gms of heroin along with a transparent polythene packet were packed in a separate cloth parcel. FSL form was filed up. All these three parcels along with the FSL form were taken into possession through a seizure memo. A rukka was prepared and sent to PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi.

4. On interrogation by Insp. Attar Singh and ACP Nishant, Manjeet disclosed that the recovered 1 kg heroin was handed over to him by Satnam Singh @ Bunty in Haridwar on 17.03.2016. On receipt of this information, S.I. Parveen was briefed about the location of Satnam Singh as per the mobile number used by him. S.I.

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top