$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 10.03.2021

Pronounced on: 18.03.2021

+

BAIL APPLN. 4005/2020

JITENDER BHATI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Yogesh Saxena, Advocate

Versus

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Standing

counsel for NCB with Mr. Rajat

Manchanda, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

JUDGMENT

1.

Petitioner has been accused of having committed offences under

Sections 22(C), 23(C) & 29 NDPS Act and in this regard, a complaint case

No. SC/110/2020, titled as “NCB Vs. Jitender Bhati & Anr.” has been filed

before the Court of learned Special Judge. He is said to be in judicial

custody since 11.10.2019.

2.

The crux of the present case is that on 11.09.2019, on the basis of

secret information received, a team of NCB/DZU-I was constituted and

reached DHL Express Ltd, Rama Road, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and

2021:DHC:989

conducted search and seizure proceedings in the presence of independent

witness with regard to a parcel bearing AWB No. 1427173425 and

recovered 150 gms of Amphetamine as per field testing kit. The recovered

substance was seized under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. During the investigation, petitioner-

Jitender Bhati was served with the notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act

and his voluntary statement was recorded on 11.10.2019. Besides

petitioner’s statement, there is statement of co-accused Dhruv Kulbe in

which he has stated that every 2-3 days, he used to receive parcels of

foreigners on the ID of Jitender Bhati and he had warned him not to do so.

This witness- Dhruv Kulbe has also stated that their agency is not authorized

to accept international parcels but Jitender Bhati used to accept these

parcels. Similar is the version of Shyam Lal Bhati who has stated that on the

asking of Jitender Bhati, he used to accept international parcels from African

nationals and used to send it to Dhruv Kulbe.

3.

Consequent upon recovery of 150 gms of Amphetamine and after

recording petitioner’s statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act on

11.10.2019, there were reasons to believe that he had committed offence

under Sections 22/29 NDPS Act, therefore, petitioner was arrested on

2021:DHC:989

11.10.2019.

4.

The learned trial court, after hearing arguments advanced by both the

sides, dismissed petitioner’s bail application vide impugned order dated

07.11.2020 while holding as under:-

2021:DHC:989

dismissed.”

5.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that

he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

6.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner assailed the impugned

order on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to take into

consideration that the day on which parcel containing contraband was

booked i.e. 09./10.09.2019 by Shyam Bhati, petitioner was on leave and his

identification documents lying in the office have been misused by someone.

It is further submitted that the parcel was booked by Monte Alexander, who

was arrested by NCB on 14.10.2019 and apart from retracted confessional

statement of petitioner, there is no other evidence on record to show that

petitioner has committed offence under the NDPS Act. Since petitioner had

not booked the parcel nor received it and also it was not in his knowledge

that parcel contained contraband substance, he cannot be prosecuted for the

offences under the NDPS Act. In support of petitioner’s case, reliance is

placed upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in. Tofan Singh Vs. State

of Tamil Nadu 2020 SCC OnLine SC 882and decisions of a Coordinate

Bench of this Court in Bail Application Nos. 2347/2017 & 505/2018, titled

as Ikechukwu Vs. Chukvubuikem Stanley & Anr. Vs. Narcotic Control

Bureau. Reliance is also placed upon decision of this Court in Kamaljit