The court established that the recovery of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not invoke the restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act, allowing bail when the accused poses no flight risk and the trial is significantly delayed.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner approached for bail after being in custody since 27/07/2017 for the recovery of 50 grams of Heroin, considered intermediate quantity - Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act not applicable as the petitioner was not found with commercial quantity - Petitioner claimed false implication and lack of conspiracy element, trial nearing conclusion, no longer required for investigation - Court allowed bail considering incarceration period and nature of recovered quantity. (Paras 4, 7, 8)

Findings of Court:
Bail granted subject to conditions including reporting to Investigating Officer, maintaining contact, and not leaving jurisdiction without permission.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in light of the quantity of drugs involved and ongoing trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Petitioner not considered a flight risk or threat to the trial process due to the nature of charges and recovery; bail granted on specific conditions.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. summary of the case facts and arrest. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's analysis on grounds for bail. (Para 3 , 7)
3. arguments presented by the petitioner and prosecution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. decision to grant bail based on specific conditions. (Para 8)
5. conclusion and procedural orders. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 124/2017 under Sections 21/29 NDPS Act registered at Police Station Crime Branch (West), Delhi.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 27/07/2017, SI Vinod Kumar of Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch received secret information that two persons namely Nabi Alam @ Abbas and Md. Akil (present petitioner) both R/o Badaiyun, UP, are engaged in the supply of Heroin in Delhi and they would be coming at Red Light, Chanakya Place, near transformer, on the road leading towards Uttam Nagar, Delhi between 02:00 PM to 02:30 PM for delivery of Heroin. The secret information was conveyed to the Inspector and ACP/N.Cell, Crime Branch and reduced into writing vide DD No. 12 dated 27/07/2017 and complied with the mandates of Section 42 NDPS Act. Thereafter, a raiding team was constituted and trap was laid near Red Light, Chankya Place, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. At about 02:30 PM, two persons, namely Nabi Alam @ Abbas and Md. Akil (present petitioner), were apprehended at the instance of the secret informer. Notices under Section 50 NDPS Act were duly served upon them and they were made aware about their legal rights but both the persons refused to avail their legal rights i.e. to be searched before any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Therefore, cursory search of Nabi Alam @ Abbas was conducted first during which 250 grams Heroin was recovered from the pant worn by him, while 50 grams Heroin was recovered from the pant of the present petitioner. The recovered Heroin was seized after taking out samples as per due process and FIR No. 124/17, under Section 21/29 NDPS Act was registered at PS Crime Branch and investigation was entrusted to Inspector RajniKant Sharma, who arrested the present petitioner and the co-accused.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State and perused the status report filed on behalf of the State.

4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner is in JC since 27.07.2017. It is further submitted that quantity recovered from the petitioner is intermediate quantity and not commercial quantity so, the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act is not applicable. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner has deep roots in the society and has family to support. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the allegations in the complaint, the element of conspiracy with the other co-accused person is missing. He further submits that chargesheet has been filed and petitioner is no more required for the investigation purposes. It is also submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other case except the present FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:

i. Arvind Kumar Saxena Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, High Court of Delhi on 14.03.2018, Bail Application No. 2238/2017.

ii. Raju Diwakar @ Pappu Vs. State, High Court of Delhi on 13.02.2020, Bail Application No. 44/2020.

iii. Amar Singh Ramji Bhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat, Supreme Court of India on 19.09.2005, Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2005.

iv. Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 152/2013 dated 29.10.2020.

6. On the other hand, learned APP has argued on the lines of status report and while opposing the present bail application submitted that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted by learned APP that contra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document