The court ruled that in narcotic offenses, knowledge of possession and conscious possession are crucial in determining bail eligibility, with emphasis on the applicant's burden to prove innocence and likelihood of not reoffending.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 25, and 29 - Bail applications for drug-related offences - Accused apprehended with 800 Kgs of contraband marijuana - Knowledge of possession and conscious possession pivotal in bail consideration - Accused's previous involvements and evidentiary links assessed. (Paras 8, 10, 12)

(B) Bail - Burden of proof on the applicant to establish grounds for bail, especially in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband - Consideration of historical context and modus operandi of accused relevant to bail decisions. (Paras 8, 9, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner Dinesh Kumar arrested during the seizure of 800 Kgs of Ganja, while co-accused Vinod Kumar Pandey linked through ownership and mobile records - He claimed ignorance of contents in truck.

Findings of Court:
No reasonable grounds established to believe that accused are not guilty of the offence or that they would not commit further offences if released.

Issues: The critical issues included the awareness and conscious possession of contraband by the accused and the implications of the evidence presented against them.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that merely being in possession of a vehicle with contraband does not automatically imply lack of knowledge - The conditions for bail not satisfied under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Result: Bail applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case against the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments presented by both petitioners for bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court’s analysis of the evidence and legal standards. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. conclusion regarding denial of bail. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

1. Separate Bail applications 2543/2021 and 828/2022 have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners Dinesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar Pandey @ Anand Panday under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 202/2019, under Section 471/474/482 IPC and Section 20, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act, registered at PS Crime Branch, Rohini North.

2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, on 11.07.2019, acting upon a secret information regarding supply of contraband marijuana i.e. Ganja in Delhi, a trap was laid near Gate No. 1, Bawana Industrial Area. The person who got down from driver side of the truck bearing No. NL-07A-7611 was identified as Dinesh and the one who got down from the other side was identified as Mohd. Kazim @ Laddan by the secret informer and were apprehended by the raiding party. After completion of legal formalities, formal search of the truck was made and 16 bags of contraband marijuana i.e. Ganja were recovered from the said truck, which weighed 800 Kgs. Accordingly, FIR No. 202/2019, under Section 20/25/29 NDPS Act was registered and both the accused Dinesh Kumar and Mohd. Kazim @ Laddan were arrested at the spot.

3. During investigation, Mohd. Kazim @ Laddan disclosed that the recovered Ganja belonged to one Salaam Mansoori, R/o Ranhola, Delhi and Anwar S/o Karim Khan. Further, petitioner Dinesh Kumar disclosed that the alleged truck belonged to petitioner Vinod Kumar Pandey, R/o Mirzapur, U.P. Later on, accused Salaam Mansoori was also arrested on 19.09.2019 in the present FIR. The Chassis number of the truck was found to be tampered/erased and the documents of the truck were found to be fake. Accordingly, sections 471/474/482 IPC were invoked. Vinod Kumar Pandey was initially declared PO on 06.02.2020. Subsequently, it was revealed during investigation that the petitioner/accused Vinod Kumar Pandey was in J.C. in District Jail Mirzapur, U.P. in another case and was formally arrested in the present FIR on 24.02.2021.

4. During investigation, it was also revealed from the owner of the truck that the documents regarding sale and purchase were executed in favour of Vinod Kumar Pandey, who tampered with the registration number, chassis number and engine number to hide its identity. Besides above, on the basis of CDR analysis, mobile numbers 7233873693 & 8765237235 used by Vinod Kumar Pandey were found in constant touch with Anwar Ali (Mobile No.6371414527 & 8480491834), who was the main supplier of the contraband from Orissa and has been declared Proclaimed Offender in the present FIR. Further these numbers were also found in touch with mobile numbers of petitioner Dinesh Kumar i.e. 9696670170 & 6305755320.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner Vinod Kumar Pandey submits that the accused has been falsely implicated and made following submissions for consideration of bail:

i. That mobile numbers 7233873693 & 8765237235 were registered in the name of one Sandeep and Satanoo Yadav and no evidence has been led to indicate in case the aforesaid numbers were being used by petitioner Vinod Kumar Pandey. Reliance is further placed upon Shravan Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Application No. 175/2018, decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Garg, vide order dated 12.03.2018. It is urged that Call Detail Records may not be enough to deny the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

ii. The ownership of the truck in question from which the contraband was recovered, has been further denied on behalf of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the alleged documents of sale were never notarized in the presence of petitioner Vinod Kumar Pandey even as per the statement of Notary Public. Further, the docum