BAIL APPLN. 1610/2021

Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 26th August, 2021

Decided on : 7th February, 2022

+

BAIL APPLN. 1610/2021

GAURAV MENDIRATTA

..... Petitioner

Represented by:

Mr.Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

Versus

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

.... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.Rajesh Manchanda, Special P.P.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks bail in Sessions Case No.

335/2019 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act instituted on the

complaint of the respondent.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case. Co-accused Mohan Kumar and

Birpal have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated

23^rd March 2020 and 6^th August 2020 respectively, hence, the petitioner is

also entitled to be released on bail. While granting bail to Mohan Kumar

and Birpal, this Court noted that there is no recovery from the said accused

and the only evidence against them is the statement under Section 67 of the

NDPS Act. While granting bail to Mohan Kumar, this Court did not rely

upon the prosecution version that the parcel originated from Agra in view of

the consignment slip marked as Annexure-5 on page 70 of the charge sheet

which showed the address of the courier company i.e. Apex Courier at

Mahipalpur, Delhi. Further, there is no mention of any consignment slip in

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000469

BAIL APPLN. 1610/2021

Page 2 of 9

the seizure memo or the panchnama in the main charge sheet. The Court

also noted the difference in the colour and weight of the samples taken and

sent to the laboratory. The alleged consignment Note No. 20235315 was

generated in Delhi and not Agra. The total weight of the parcel was 25.460

kg and the weight of the contraband was 21.960 kg. By no stretch of

imagination, the packing material can be equivalent to 3.5 kg. No calls or

chats have been found between the petitioner or the co-accused or any other

person. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the premises of M/s.

Golden Belly Farms, Uttar Pradesh. Statement of the petitioner recorded

under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was not voluntary as the same was taken

after continuous custody with NCB officials and had been retracted at the

earliest opportunity and in any case, cannot be relied upon in view of the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as (2021) 4 SCC 1 Tofan

3.

It is further contended that the prosecution has surreptitiously chosen

to make Satpal who was working in ‘Welcome Courier’ as a witness and not

an accused even though the money was substantiallypaid by Satpal to co-

accused Brij Bhushan Bansal and he was in contact with the said accused

and both of them knew each other for the last 4-5 years. Further, even as per

Satpal, the main accused Brij Bhushan Bansal indulged in similar

transactions earlier also. There are material differences in the statements of

the various accused and witnesses recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS

Act which go to the root of the matter. The petitioner has been in custody

since 22^nd January 2019 and the trial is likely to take some time. There is no

recovery of contraband nor any money trail has been found from the present

petitioner. The petitioner has a previous enmity with the respondent as he

was falsely implicated earlier also and in one case, he has been acquitted and

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000469

BAIL APPLN. 1610/2021

Page 3 of 9

in another case, he is on bail. The petitioner is 75 years old and suffering

from various life threatening diseases due to which, the petitioner was

granted interim bail and he surrendered on 20^th March 2021 which

concession he did not misuse. The petitioner be thus release