IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Arvind Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail.Appl. No. 1029 of 2019
Decided On : 28-01-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations against the petitioner related to drug offenses. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. procedural aspects of investigation and filings. (Para 2 , 5 , 12) |
| 3. compliance with regulatory mandates regarding drug sales. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 15) |
| 4. petitioner's argument on duration of custody & legality of sales. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. opposition's argument on conspiratorial liability and drug trafficking. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. legal principles regarding ndps and its applicability. (Para 24 , 25 , 27) |
| 7. illegal sales and ramifications of drug law violations. (Para 26 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. final determination on bail application. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. The applicant Arvind Kumar seeks the grant of bail in terms of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in Sessions Case No.374/2018 in relation to the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 8 , 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 with it having been alleged that for the entire quantity of seized narcotics and psychotropic substances, Harish Chander, proprietor of M/s Shiv Medicos and the present applicant, proprietor of M/s City Enterprises had not followed the mandated provisions of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the Central Bureau of Narcotics i.e. the respondent and both the applicant and the respondent have addressed their submissions qua the prayer made by the petitioner. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent. Written submissions on behalf of either side have also been submitted, perused and considered.
3. The allegations that have been made in the Sessions Case No.374/2018 filed by the respondent are to the effect that an information had been received that a person named Harish Chander proprietor of M/s Shiv Medicos (the co-accused presently in judicial custody) at 1706/8, First Floor, Milap Bhawan, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-06 was selling narcotics and psychotropic medicines illegally at his shop and on search of his shop being conducted, the narcotics and psychotropic medicines were recovered in a huge quantity as detailed in the complaint.
4. The said co-accused Harish Chander as per the complaint was not able to produce any purchase or sale documents for these narcotics and psychotropic medicines which were thus seized under Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for violation of Rule 65A of the NDPS Act, 1985. The medicines so seized, were to the effect:
"i. Alprazolam-2,06,125 tablets
ii. Pentazocine inj.-3,194 ampules
iii. Nitrazepam tablet-20,400 tablets.
iv. Tramadol-1,28,880 tablets & capsules
v. Diazepam-1,400 tablets.
vi. Diazepam inj.-380 ampules.
vii. Lorazepam-31260 tablets.
viii. Chlordiazepoxide-7,800 tablets.
ix. Clonazepam-3,190 tablets.
x. Zolpidem-300 tablets.
xi. Buprenorphine inj.-6,050 ampules.
xii. Codeine Phosphate Syrup (100ml)-9,237 bottles.",
And samples were stated to have been drawn from the medicines seized from Sh. Harish Chander, proprietor of M/s Shiv Medicos.
5. During the course of the investigation conducted, the call details record of the co-accused Harish Chander seized from mobile numbers 8368673642 and 9871157024 were obtained from the concerned Nodal Officer and it was found in the CDRs of mobile number 8368673642 that there were frequent calls that had been made with mobile number 9728259445, which was registered in the name of Arvind Taluja, r/o Sonipat Haryana i.e. the present petitioner.
6. As per the complaint filed in Court on the basis of the statement of the accused Harish Chander and the report received from M/s Hariwin Pharma through M/s Laborate Pharmaceuticals, it came to notice that the mobile number 9728259445 mentioned in the bill of M/s City Enterprises, Daryaganj is the same number as mentioned by the co-accused Harish Chander in his statement. A search was thus conducted on 30.07.2018 at M/s City Enterprises, Daryaganj, New Delhi, but nothing incriminating was found nor was anything taken i
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.