BAIL APPLN. 631/2022

Page 1 of 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Order: 13^th April, 2022

+

BAIL APPLN. 631/2022

RENUKA@ RENUKA BISWAS

…Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Vishal

Krishnantrey, Advocates

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

…Respondent

Through:

Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for

State

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1.

The present petition has been preferred under Section 439 read

with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,

referred to as the “Code”) for seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No.

226/2019 under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, referred to as the “NDPS Act”)

registered at PS – Special Cell, Delhi.

2.

The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that on 15^th

December 2019, at around 5:40 am, the Police Station - Special Cell,

Lodhi Colony, New Delhi received information that a person named

Anubhav Dushad @ Vicky, r/o Munirka Village, New Delhi has been

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001390

BAIL APPLN. 631/2022

Page 2 of 12

dealing in narcotic drugs supply, and was to deliver a consignment of

narcotic drugs to a woman named Renuka, on the very same day, near

New Delhi Railway Station. A raiding team was accordingly

constituted, and the concerned persons were apprehended from the

spot. The consignment recovered contained a light-brown powder

weighing 3 Kgs, that upon being checked through field testing kit,

turned out to be narcotic substance „Heroin‟. An FIR was accordingly

registered under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

innocent, is a person of good standing, has clean antecedents and has

been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that the

petitioner has to take care of her minor son and ailing parents. It is

further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the

last two years and considering the fact that the chargesheet has been

already filed, the petitioner is no more required for any investigative

purposes.

4.

It is further alleged that there was non-compliance of the

requirement under section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is also prayed that

since the applicant is a woman, she is entitled to the special

consideration for bail as prescribed under the proviso to Section 437(1)

of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel on instructions also submitted that the

petitioner undertakes not to tamper with the evidence and shall not

influence the witnesses and shall abide by any terms/conditions

imposed on her while granting bail. In light of the aforesaid, it is

submitted that the applicant be granted bail.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001390

BAIL APPLN. 631/2022

Page 3 of 12

5.

Per Contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for State

vehemently objected the instant application and submitted that a total

of 3 Kgs of Heroin was recovered from the possession of the applicant

herein, and accordingly under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, no person

accused of an offence involving commercial quantities of narcotic

substances under the said Act, should be released on bail.

6.

It is prayed that the intent behind legislating the Act was to stop

the cascading effect of drug-addiction, and serious ramifications, on

the society at large. It is prayed that if the applicant being alleged of

the grave offence is released on bail, it will defeat the legislative intent

behind the special Act.

7.

It is further submitted that a prima facie opinion of the

innocence of the accused is not a sufficient condition in deciding grant

of bail. There should be existence of „reasonable grounds‟ pointing to

existence of facts and circumstances justifying the accused‟s

innocence. In the instant case, there are no