Prolonged custody and lack of trial can justify bail despite stringent provisions under the NDPS Act; weight of the entire drug mixture, including neutral substances, is relevant for determining quantity classifications.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present bail application is filed seeking regular bail in Case No. VIII/24/DZU/23, registered for offences under Sections 8 (c), 20 (b), 22(c), 23(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

2.1. On 29.05.2023, a secret information was received that one person, namely, Gajender Singh, will come for booking a parcel containing narcotic drugs at DTDC Courier. On the basis of the said information, accused Gajender was intercepted by the raiding team when he arrived at the DTDC Office. It is alleged that accused Gajender was carrying a light green envelop. A recovery of 15 LSD paper blots, weighing 0.3 g, was effectuated from the said envelop. It is alleged that at the instance of accused Gajender, a recovery of 650 LDS Blots was made from his home as well.

2.2. It is alleged that the accused Gajender admitted his complicity in the offence in his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He further disclosed that he used to book parcels on the directions of co- accused Shainu. Thereafter, co-accused Shainu disclosed that she had purchased the LSD Blots from her friend– Sarabjeet Singh and gave his details.

2.3. A search was conducted at the disclosed address of co-accused Sarabjeet Singh in Jaipur and a recovery of 9006 LSD Blots and 1.116 Kg of Ganja along with Rs.4,65,500/- was made from there.

2.4. It is alleged that co-accused Sarabjeet disclosed about a few other consignments in his disclosure statement.

2.5. One such consignment bearing no. W60822411 had been delivered to one Manthan Raina in Noida. During search of the address in Noida, a recovery of a total of 84 LSD Blots was made from there.

2.6. Co-accused Manthan in his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS act disclosed the name of the applicant. He stated that that the parcel was ordered by one Yuvanshu, who knew many dealers on darknet and wickr. He further stated that the applicant, who was his friend, had paid Rs.30,000/- to Yuvanshu for procuring the concerned parcel and it was the applicant who had shared his address and mobile number with Yuvanshu. He further stated that the applicant had sent the tracking number of the parcel to him. It is alleged that the applicant admitted to his complicity in the crime in his disclosure statement.

2.7. During follow up action in relation to other parcels (the details of which had been disclosed by co-accused Sarabjeet), the following recoveries were affected:

a. Parcel no. RR673997169L: Intercepted at Post Office Mahasainik, Pune and a recovery of 5006 LSD Blots was made from the parcel.

b. Parcel No. W60803432: Intercepted at the DTDC courier Service, Kerala and a recovery of 100 LSD Blots was made from the parcel. Further, co-accused Saneesh Soman was apprehended when he came to collect the said parcel.

c. Parcel No. W60803434: Intercepted at the DTDC Express Ltd., Aminjikarai, Chennai, and a recovery of 100 LSD Blots was made from the parcel.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Manthan and no recovery has been effectuated from him.

4. He further submitted that co-accused Manthan and the applicant have retracted their disclosure statements. He submitted that the disclosure statements cannot be used against the applicant in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 1 .

5. He submitted that there is no money trail or incriminating evidence which links the applican