$~48

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

BAIL APPLN. 2719/2020 & CRL.M. (BAIL) 96/2021

ANWAR@ KUTUB

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Dolly Sharma, Advocate.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

TALWANT SINGH, J.:

1. This is an application for grant of bail moved by the petitioner,

Anwar alias Kutub, who is an accused in FIR No. 380/2017, registered at PS

Special Staff, Badarpur, Delhi, under Section 20/25 of the NDPS Act.

1.1

As per the petitioner, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner

was arrested by Police on 06.11.2017 on the allegation that the petitioner

was found running away from a cot lying in a field and he was apprehended

by Police at a distance of about 20-25 paces away from the cot. The arrest of

the present petitioner was made on the basis of a false disclosure statement

extracted from co-accused Rajesh Kumar, in which he had stated that the

yellow-coloured bag, which was found lying under the cot, had been

delivered to the petitioner about 3-4 days back and the said bag was

delivered at the behest of one Dinesh Pal, who was living in the

neighbourhood of co-accused Rajesh. The said Dinesh Pal is not even an

accused in the present case.

1.2

As per the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in this case due to

enmity with the Police. In the evidence recorded so far nothing has been

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002189

stated against the petitioner. No contraband was recovered from his

possession or at his instance. No public person has deposed against the

petitioner; he is not the owner of the field where the cot was lying and

moreover, he was not owner of the said cot, where the alleged bag was kept.

There is no legally admissible document on record suggesting that the

yellow-coloured plastic bag recovered at the instance and identified by co-

accused, Rajesh, was ever given by the co-accused to the petitioner.

1.3

The trial is vitiated due to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of

Sections 42/50 NDPS Act. The co-accused Bilkis Begum, Hafiza and Vinod

Kumar are already on bail in spite of the fact that the commercial quantity of

ganja was recovered from their possession.

1.4

It has been submitted that the petitioner is entitled to acquittal as

mandatory provisions prescribed under Sections 50/42 of the NDPS Act

have been violated. The petitioner submits that his wife is suffering from

serious ailment and she requires specialised treatment and there is nobody at

home to look after her. He has 4 minor school going children.

1.5

The learned Trial Court has dismissed his bail application on

27.08.2020. The conduct of the petitioner throughout detention is

exemplary. The petitioner has never misused the liberty granted to him

during interim bail and he undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions to

be imposed by this Court.

2. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that in case of Hafiza and

Bilkis Begum, the prosecution witnesses regarding recovery have not

supported the case of the prosecution, so they were enlarged on bail.

2.1

As far as the present petitioner is concerned, the prosecution

witnesses are yet to be examined. They are all Police officials. In case of the

co-accused Vinod, only intermediate quantity of the contraband was

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002189

recovered. The petitioner had jumped the interim bail and there are other

cases pending against him.

2.2

The co-accused Rajesh has identified the present petitioner as a

person to whom he had supplied 50 kg of ganja, 3-4 days ago and he also

identified one yellow-coloured plastic bag kept under the cot, over which the

present petitioner was found sitting and Rajesh stated that this is the same

bag in which he had supplied ganja to the present petitioner.

2.3

No