The court emphasized that bail for drug offenses requires proof of innocence and likelihood of non-reoffending, in line with stringent statutory provisions to combat drug trafficking.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Bail application under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The petitioner sought bail after being in custody since 6th September 2017 for alleged supply of narcotics - The Court noted the legislative intent to impose stringent conditions for bail in drug-related offenses - The gravity of allegations and substantial contraband recovered informed the decision. (Paras 1, 9-20)

(B) Bail - Burden of proof regarding reasonable grounds for bail - The court must establish reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offense while on bail in drug offenses under Section 37 - The court emphasized adherence to statutory guidelines. (Paras 10-19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested with 243 Kg of ganja at New Delhi Railway Station and had been in custody for over four years. It was alleged that he was a supplier of narcotics, with another FIR pending against him for similar charges involving larger quantities. (Paras 1-7)

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the bail application due to the gravity of the charges, the substantial recovery of narcotics, and the serious societal implications of drug trafficking. (Paras 19-20)

Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty and would not reoffend while on bail under the stringent bail provisions of the NDPS Act. (Paras 10-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions set by the NDPS Act for granting bail are intended to uphold the legislative mandate against drug trafficking, which poses a significant threat to society. (Paras 10-19)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. bail application context and background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for the petitioner's release. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. counterarguments by the state. (Para 6 , 7)
4. legal provisions under the ndps act. (Para 9 , 10)
5. interpretation of reasonable grounds for bail. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
6. court's dismissal of the bail application. (Para 19 , 20)

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant bail application under Section 439(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No. 155/2017 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, for an offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter "NDPS Act").

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 6th September 2017, a secret information was received that the petitioner is involved in the supply of "Ganja" to drug dealers in Delhi NCR and would be receiving Ganja from Train no. 22823 - Bhuvneshwar Rajdhani through parcel and if raid was conducted between 10-11 AM, the police may catch hold of the accused with the alleged contraband. On reaching near the parcel coach, the informant recognized a person (petitioner herein), who was wearing a blue colored T-shirt. The petitioner opened the parcel van, unloaded the parcels and stood there while keeping his one hand on the parcels. At around 12:30 PM with the help of the raiding team ASI Mahesh Kumar nabbed Saroj and took him under his control.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He is an educated person and a law-abiding citizen of India. The Petitioner is a resident of Orissa, but at the time of arrest he was temporarily residing at: 8878, Gali No.2, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi, for the purposes of his business. It is submitted that the petitioner runs a small "parcel delivery business" in the name of "M/s. Saroj Parcel", a partnership firm, whose principal place of business/operation was at New Delhi Railway Station, from where he used to pick parcels from "Parcel Car" attached to train and to deliver the same to the local area/market of Delhi/NCR as per the instructions of person who booked the said parcel from Bhubaneswar, Calcutta, Guwahati and other different cities of North/North-East India.

4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that on the day of his arrest i.e. 6th September 2017, the petitioner was waiting for the train on the platform of New Delhi Railway Station for his day to day business like any other normal day. It is vehemently argued that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of alleged contraband and prosecution does not have even single witness to implicate the petitioner with the alleged offence.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been in judicial custody for more than four years since the day of his arrest, i.e. 6th September 2017. It is prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail who is the sole breadwinner of his family having old-aged sick mother. On instructions, learned counsel undertakes that the petitioner shall abide by any condition imposed by this Court while granting bail.

6. Per contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for state vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that on the aforesaid date of raid, a trap was laid at platform No-11, New Delhi Railway Station. At about 12.30 PM, one person namely Saroj Subudhi S/o Sh. Nageshwar Subudhi R/o 8878, Gali No-2, Multani Dhanda Pharganj, New Delhi age 29 years was apprehended. The notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him and his legal rights were explained. After, his refusal, he was cursorily searched, wherein 6 plastic Katta parcels were recovered from his possession. On opening, one another plastic Katta was found in each parcel Katta, in which one corrugated box was kept. A total of six corrugated boxes