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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Talwant Singh, J.
Vinod Rathore - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 4429 of 2021
Decided On : 22-04-2022




The court reaffirmed that minor weight discrepancies in evidence do not undermine credibility and that substantial evidence of guilt warrants denial of bail under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 29, and 37 - Regular bail application for trial under NDPS Act - Applicant facing charges of possessing commercial quantity of Charas - Allegations regarding tampering with seized contraband dismissed due to lack of evidence and minor weight variations explained by moisture loss - Application for bail not merited due to substantial evidence against the applicant. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Bail considerations under NDPS - Court finds no reasonable grounds for believing the applicant is not guilty or unlikely to commit further offenses - Arguments for bail denied due to the serious nature of the allegations and substantial evidence of guilt. (Paras 6-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2018, found in possession of 1100 gms of Charas, supporting evidence includes digital evidence from mobile phones and eyewitness accounts. The applicant alleges tampering and seeks bail based on the lengthy custody period and parity with co-accused already granted bail.

Findings of Court:
The court noted the evidence strongly linked the applicant to the charge and the minor variances in sample weights did not support claims of tampering.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the tampering claims, the nature of the evidence against the applicant, and the applicability of bail provisions under the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that minor discrepancies in weight do not undermine the credibility of evidence nor negate the seriousness of the charges under the NDPS Act; substantive evidence against the applicant requires denial of bail.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for bail and claims of tampering (Para 4)
3. prosecution refutation of bail arguments (Para 5)
4. additional arguments concerning parity and weight issue (Para 6)
5. court's reasoning and dismissal of bail application (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J.

1. This is an application for regular bail moved by the petitioner, who is facing trial under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short `NDPS') in FIR No. 187/2018, PS Crime Branch Delhi.

2. The FIR was registered on 21.07.2018 and charge-sheet was filed on 27.09.2018. First supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 22.10.2018. Charges under Section 29 NDPS were framed against all three accused persons and charge under Sections u/s 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act was framed against the Petitioner; charge u/s 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act was framed against Anmol Yadav @ Honey and charge under Section 25 of the NDPS Act was also framed against the accused Harmeet Singh @ Hunny. The petitioner is stated to be in J.C. since, 21.07.2018; except for the period of interim bail on two occasions.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of secret information SI Ram Kishan registered DD No. 18 at 5:15 PM on 20.07.2018. A raiding team was formed. On the way, IO stopped the car and requested 5-6 persons to join the investigation but no one agreed; on reaching the spot one Honda Civic car was found parked bearing registration No. DL2FHV0070, which was recognised by the secret informer, who also identified the present petitioner as well as the co-accused Anmol, who was standing near the car. The petitioner took out a black colour bag from the car and handed over the same to Anmol, who held the same on his left shoulder at the same time, the present petitioner also left with another bag holding it in his left hand. Both the accused persons were apprehended.

3.1. They were informed about their rights and given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act; they denied to avail the opportunity to get themselves searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer/Magistrate and they further disclosed that they have Charas with them. SI Ram Kishan further requested 5-7 persons present there but they refused to join the investigation. The black colour bag in possession of the present petitioner was searched, from which one big packet and one small packet were recovered, having black colour sticky material, which had a foul smell. On checking the said material, it was found to be Charas. The total weight was 1100 gms; out of which 4 sample packets of 25 gms each were prepared and FSL form was filled. All the packets were taken in the Police custody and marked as Mark 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D. Remaining Charas was sealed in black colour bag and the same was marked as Mark 1E.

3.2. Thereafter search of accused Anmol @ Honey was conducted and the small packet was containing black sticky material having foul smell, which was found to be Charas. The weight was found out to be 100 gms; two samples were drawn of 25 gms each and similar process was conducted as was done in the case of present petitioner.

3.3. On receipt of Tehrir, FIR No. 187/2018 was registered. The case property was handed over to Malkhana. Investigation was handed over to ASI Murlidhar/IO. Special Arrest Report under Section 57 NDPS Act was prepared and sent to the Crime Branch. Both the accused disclosed that they had taken delivery of Charas from Harmeet Singh @ Hunny, who was caught from Seelampur Gol Chakkar on 23.07.2018 at 09:05 AM.

3.4. The Call Detail Records (CDRs) disclosed that there were several calls amongst the accused persons; the mobile phones of all the accused were seized and sent to FSL. The car was also seized. The co-accused Jagga, who, as per the statement of Harmeet Singh, was supplying him Charas, was not found and he had been declared a proclaimed offender (P.O.). Accused were charge-sheeted

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