SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 27801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
AYK, SJD
INDRESH RAMBACHAN NISHAD – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent



Petitioner Advocates:,Respondent Advocate: KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1895 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE ================================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No
================================================================

INDRESH RAMBACHAN NISHAD Versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ===============================================================

Appearance:

URVESH M PRAJAPATI(8878) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 VIVEK M BRAHMBHATT(10076) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. DEVANG VYAS, Additional Solicitor General of India with KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572), Standing Counsel for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2, MR. JASH THAKKAR, ADVOCATE, MR. SAGAR BHANDARE, ADVOCATE and MR. SUNDEEP SADAWARTE, ADVOCATE MR. HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent No.2 ===============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE Date : 19/02/2024

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE) Leave to add State as party respondent No.2.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act for the offenses under Sections 120B of the IPC, under Sections 21(c), 8(c), 25 and

29 of the of the NPDS Act for following reliefs:-

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of F.I.R. being No.RC-26/2020/NIA/DLI registered with NIA Head Quarters Police Station, New Delhi, and also of NIA Criminal Misc. Application no. 23 of 2022 from the Court of Hon’ble Special Judge, NIA Court, Ahmedabad and after perusing the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated

24.06.2022;”

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to grant this application by releasing the applicant on regular bail in connection F.I.R. being C.R. No.RC-26/2020/NIA/DLI registered with NIA Head Quarters Police Station, New Delhi, in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is implicated and arraigned as an accused no. 9 in connection with F.I.R. no.RC-26/2020/NIA/DLI (arising out of FIR being C.R.No.III-1/2018 registered with NIA Head Quarters Police Station, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Section-120 (B) of the India Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections-21(c), 8(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant thereafter has preferred a regular bail application before the Hon'ble Special Judge, NIA Court, Ahmedabad being NIA Criminal Misc. Application no. 23 of 2022. The said regular bail application filed by the appellant was objected by the National Investigation Agency who has filed objections . It is submitted that Hon’ble Special Judge, NIA Court, Ahmedabad thereafter vide order dated 24-06-

2022, has been pleased to reject the same.

2.2 Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The appellant has played no role in commission of the offence. There is no evidence on record to indicate the involvement of the appellant with the crime in question. The appellant is sought to be involved on the basis of suspicion only. It is submitted that the appellant is not found with the possession of the contraband.

2.3 Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had only accepted consignment for transportation by paying transportation charges as he has also another consignment to deliver at Jammu and Kashmir, and therefore he is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top