IMPORTANT POINT
The organized nature of the crime, prima facie evidence, and the serious impact of the offense on society influenced the court's decision to reject the bail application.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State. Learned advocate Mr. Kshitij Amin waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-NIA. The appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 21 of the National Investigation Act for the offences punishable under Sections 120B of IPC, under Sections 8(C), 21(C), 25, 27(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act and under Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by the appellant for following reliefs:-

The appeal is filed by the appellant for following relief:-

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to grant regular bail to the present Applicant i.e. original accused no.19, pending the trial in connection with the NIA Special Case No.2 of 2020 arising out of FIR registered with NIA, Branch office, Mumbai being NIA RC-26/2020/NIA/DLI on any suitable terms and conditions in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant was not named in the FIR registered with the ATS Gujarat nor he is named in the chargesheet of the said case. It is submitted that the allegations in the said FIR was pertaining to the smuggling and distribution of 500 Kg of illegal Narcotic drugs (Heroin) from Pakistan to Gujarat, India by sea route. It is submitted that the appellant has not played any role in bringing the contraband to Gujarat from Pakistan. The appellant was no where in the picture till the filing of the charge-sheet in connection with the FIR registered with the ATS in Gujarat. It is submitted that the present appellant is not named in the FIR registered on 23.01.2019 by ATS/Ahmedabad nor he is named in the chargesheet i.e. filed on 07.08.2020 in NIA Special Court at Ahmedabad as the said chargesheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 8 only.

2.1 It is submitted that that out of 500 Kg of Drugs, 295 Kg was sent to Punjab on the direction of the Simranjit Singh Sandhu wanted Accused No. 2, with the help of the co accused Shahid Kasam Sumra accused No 11, Rafik Adam Sumra accused No. 2 by Nazir Ahmed accused No. 3, manszoor Ahmed accused No. 5. The remaining 200 Kg was sent to Punjab through Razak Adam Sumra accused No. 6, Karim Mohammed Siraj accused No. 7, Sunil Vithal Barmase accused No: 8 and Indresh Nishad accused No. 9 and the said consignment was received by the Sukhbir Singh @ Happy accused No 10, Sukhwinder Singh accused No. 18, Major Singh accused No. 15 and wanted accused Arjun Atwal on the direction of the main wanted accused Simranjit Singh Sandhu wanted accused No. 2 and Ankush Kapoor wanted accused and stored in Punjab. Arman Bassar Mal accused No. 20 was tasked to Purify the said consignment. That Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukh accused No 18 and Mantej Sigh-appellant accused No 19 Sukhbir singh accused No.10 on the direction of the aanted accused Ankush Kapoor and Simranjit Singh Sandhu used to deliver the purified drug/heroin to their customers in different vehicles used by the other co accused in Punjab.

2.2 It is submitted that there is no prima facie evidence which can connect the appellant with the said offense nor any of the sections especially Section 120(b) of IPC Sections 21(c), 8(c), 25, 27(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for short “UAP Act”) are attracted towards the present appellant in the said case. The appellant has been falsely roped into the said offence after the period of 4 long years without giving any valid explanation of the delay. It is submitted that the name of the present appellant came to be roped into the said offence merely on the basis of the co accused statement.

2.3 Learned advocate submits that the appellant may be enlarged on regular bail as he is in jail since date of his arrest and no drugs alleged to have been found from his conscious possession. Also, there are no criminal antecedents of the present appellant nor there is any specific date or place is mentioned in the en