BAIL APPLN. 1215/2021

Page 1 of 7

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 21^st May, 2021

Decided on: 27th May, 2021

+

BAIL APPLN. 1215/2021

RAJENDER KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Represented by:

Ms.Priya Kumar and Mr. Shubham

Napgal, Advocates.

versus

NCB

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.Subhash Bansal, Sr. Standing

Counsel for NCB with Mr. Shashwat

Bansal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1.

By this petition, petitioner seeks regular bail in the complaint filed by

the

Narcotic

Control

Bureau

(in

short

‘NCB’)

being

Crime

No.VIII/07/DZU/2020 under Sections 8/21/29 Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’).

2.

When notice was issued in this petition on 12^th April, 2021 learned

counsel for the petitioner at the outset stated that the prayer for interim bail

is a typographical error and the petition be treated as one for regular bail for

which notice was issued by this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was

only a driver of the vehicle and had no connection whatsoever with the

transaction or with the person who was involved in the transaction. No

2021:DHC:1710

BAIL APPLN. 1215/2021

Page 2 of 7

recovery whatsoever has been made from the petitioner. The fact that the

petitioner was not involved in the offence is evident from the fact that the

main accused tried to run away on apprehension but the petitioner did not try

to run away. Petitioner has no criminal history and no previous conviction.

The petitioner was not aware as to what was there in the packet and for what

purpose the cash was being handed over. Even as per the case of the

prosecution on the asking of the owner of the vehicle the petitioner gave the

packet of cash which was lying in the car. Version of the so-called

prosecution witnesses that the petitioner gave cash from his pocket is

unbelievable. The rigours of Section 37 are not applicable as there is no

reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence.

Statement of the public witness Deepak Duggal cannot be relied upon as the

same was recorded on 15^th June, 2020 though the alleged recovery was made

on 29^th January, 2020. Further no reliance can also be placed on the

statement of this witness for the reason admittedly the apprehension took

place after 10.30 PM on a winter night and from a distance the transaction

would not be visible to the public witness due to the low visibility. Reliance

is placed on the decisions reported as MANU/DE/0819/2005 Kassu Ram vs.

State; Mohd. Zuber vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln.3821/2006

decided on 30^th October, 2006; 130 (2006) DLT 114 Karan Singh vs. The

Nadar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, MCRC No.6299/2018 decided on 3^rd

October, 2018 to contend that the petitioner being a mere driver of the

vehicle and no recovery having been made from him, he cannot be said to be

allegedly involved in the offence of possession of the narcotic drug.

4.

Opposing the bail application, learned Senior Standing Counsel for

2021:DHC:1710

BAIL APPLN. 1215/2021

Page 3 of 7

the respondent/NCB states that the petitioner is a co-conspirator and active

participant in the offence as he had come to the place of the incident in the

car along with the main accused who purchased the narcotic drug and the

money was in the pocket of the petitioner which on the instructions of the

main accused was given by the petitioner to Nicolas. Besides the members

of the raiding team, statement of the public witness Deepak Duggal has been

recorded in this regard. Further the petitioner had come along with the main

accused and hence it cannot be said that he had no knowledge of the

purchase of the contraband. Material witnesses are yet to be examined,

hence no bail be granted to the petitioner.

5.

The above noted complaint was filed by the NCB impleading

Sukhwinde