NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 11167/2024 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.REV.P. 495/2024 & CRL.M.A. 11166/2024

2. This petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS Court, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), in SC No. 156/2021, titled NCB v. Bhanu Pratap Singh & Ors., framing charges against the petitioner herein under Section 22(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 23(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and the charges that were framed vide order dated 11.01.2024 by the learned Trial Court.

3. Issue notice Page 2 of 8

4. Notice is accepted by Mr. Utsav Singh Bains, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NCB.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case of the prosecution against the petitioner is based on the alleged disclosure statement made by the co-accused Som Dutt on 08.04.2021, 10.04.2021, and 12.04.2021. He submits that the disclosure statement is not admissible in evidence. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Tofan Singh (2021) 4 SCC 1, in support of his submission. He further submits that as far as the mobile recovered from the petitioner is concerned, in the Mobile Data Extraction Report dated 11.06.2021, there is no finding of any data being deleted or any incriminating data being recovered from the said mobile phone.

6. He places reliance on the judgment of this court in Arun Kumar @ Varun v. Narcotics Control Bureau 2023:DHC:2752, wherein this Court, while releasing the applicant on bail, has observed as under:

“16. Pursuant to an assessment of the respective contention of the parties and perusal of documents on record, this Court notes that there was no recovery from the petitioner and his name cropped up, as per the State, in disclosure statements of Somdutt, which in any event are not admissible.

However, even despite Somdutt disclosing the involvement of the petitioner, there was no recovery from the petitioner and the allegation was, even as per Somdutt, that the petitioner used to provide fake ID's of different persons for courier of parcels containing these medicines to different countries. Recoveries were from Somdutt instead. The CDR assessment by the State would at best show that the petitioner was in touch with Somdutt, Page 3 of 8 Even as per the screenshots relied upon by the State of the mobile messages, it does not reveal that there were discussions regarding contraband. The bank accounts statements which the State relies upon are merely a typed copy showing the list of amounts and dates but there are no details provided regarding whom these amounts were received from or sent to.

As regards the statement of Preeti in the other complaint case (SC No. 156/2021), it is noted that the IO had withdrawn the application to rely upon her statement in this matter. The petitioner was accused in this other case, in which he is already on bail since 28th May,

2022. The tracking bar codes relied upon by the State as also the tracking details of the courier parcels only serve to show that there were packages sent to certain named persons abroad but there is nothing placed on record to show their connection with the petitioner. It seems prima facie evident that the role of the petitioner, ever as per the prosecution case, is different from the other accused and is being considered in light of the specific allegations in relation to the petitioner, 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (2023) SCC OnLine 352 has held that the standard to be considered by the Court regarding conditions under Section 37 NDPS is of a reasonable satisfaction on a prima facie look at the material on record, that the accused may not be guilty. It does not call for meticulous e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document