2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 25655
BAIL APPLN. 1692/2023 Page 1 of 25
$~48
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 29.11.2023
+
BAIL APPLN. 1692/2023
AWADHESH YADAV
..... Petitioner
Through:
Mr Aditya Aggarwal, Mr Naveen
Panwar, Mr Ankit Mutreja and Ms
Kirtika, Advocates.
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through:
Ms Richa Dhawan, APP for the State
with SI Jagbir, Narcotics Squad, West
District.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 CrPC seeking
regular bail in FIR No.0240/2022 under Sections 20/29 of the NDPS Act [in
short “the Act”] registered at PS Naraina.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
2.
The case of the prosecution as borne from the chargesheet is that on
the basis of a secret information received by ASI Mohan Lal on 04.05.2022,
co-accused Rakesh was intercepted at around 06:08 AM along with two bags
at Nariana village, New Delhi and 21.084 kg. of ganja was recovered from
ARUNA KANWAR
07.12.2023
23:02:14
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1692/2023 Page 2 of 25
his possession. During the investigation it was found that the real name of
co-accused Rakesh Singh is Tarkeshwar Prashad Shah S/o Shiv Nath Shah,
R/o VPO-Mohamadpur, PS Manjhi, Chhapra, Bihar and he has changed his
identity as he had been previously involved in NDPS cases.
3.
During the course of further investigation, co-accused Tarkeshwar
Prashad Shah disclosed that he used to procure ganja from one Gagan Jha
and used to sell it by making small packets i.e. pudiya. Later, when Gagan
was caught by police, he made direct contact with Awadesh Yadav (the
present petitioner) and Manish Kumar @ Prince Bharti and started
purchasing ganja from them and he would sell the same in Delhi.
4.
On the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused, Rakesh, a
raiding team went to the house of the petitioner on 08.05.2022 with the local
police at his village Rasulpur, PS Rasulpur, Chappra, Bihar. When the
raiding party rang the bell of the house, the petitioner saw the raiding team
and threw two bags on the road. The members of the raiding team
apprehended the petitioner and also recovered the bags thrown by him. The
two bags were opened and checked and they were found containing ganja
weighing 600 gm and 228 gm, respectively. Thus, total of 828 gm ganja
was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was, thereafter, arrested.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ganja weighing 21.084
kg. recovered from co-accused Tarkeshwar Prashad Shah @ Rakesh Singh
cannot be added to the quantity of 828 gm. of ganja, which has been
recovered from the petitioner. He submits that the recovery of contraband
from the petitioner is a small quantity and by adding the quantity recovered
ARUNA KANWAR
07.12.2023
23:02:14
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1692/2023 Page 3 of 25
from co-accused Rakesh, the rigors of section 37 of NDPS Act cannot be
extended to the petitioner. In support of his submission, the learned counsel
relies upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anita vs.
State of NCT [Bail Appln. 1538/2022, order dated 20.07.2022] and Anita @
Kallo vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) [Bail Appln. 957/2023, DOD
18.07.2023] in which another Coordinate Bench of this Court relying upon
the decision of Anita (supra) held that the recovery made from the petitioner
therein could not be clubbed with the recovery made from the co-accused
and accordingly, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in
the facts and circumstances of that case.
6.
He submits that there is no direct recovery from the petitioner,
inasmuch as, the recovery of 828 gm of ganja is from the street on the back
side of the petitioner’s house, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be in
conscious possession of the contraband.
7.
He further submits that the prosecution has based its case upon the
bank transactions and call details between the petitioner and co-accused
Rakesh. He places reliance on the decision of Haresh Rawal vs. NCB: 2021
SCC OnLine DEL 3007 (decided on 03.06.2021), to contend that question
regarding call detail and chats is to be tested during trial.
8.
Further, relying upon the decision of Bharat Chaudhary vs. Union of
India: 2021 SCC On