BAIL APPLN.732/2021

Page 1 of 8

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 21^st May, 2021

Decided on: 1st June, 2021

+

BAIL APPLN. 732/2021

GULBABU

..... Petitioner

Represented by:

Mr.R.K. Giri, Advocate.

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for State with

Mr.Chinmoy Biswal, DCP, Inspector

Ram Manohar and SI Abdul Barkat

PS Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1.

By this petition, petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.197/2020

under Sections 21/29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered at PS Crime Branch, Delhi.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the prosecution

case the petitioner was apprehended at 8.10 PM on 17^th December, 2020

however, he was arrested only at 11.45 AM on 18^th December, 2020 when

the arrest memo was prepared. Thus the petitioner was kept in illegal

custody all this time and documents created. Despite the fact there was no

information given to the family by mobile phone or even through a

messenger, the arrest memo notes the thumb mark of the wife of the

petitioner in Column No.10. No DD entry has been recorded to show how

the signatures of the wife of the petitioner had been obtained on the arrest

memo. Though the apprehension is at 8.10 PM on 17th December, 2020, the

Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE

MUKTA GUPTA

Signing Date:01.06.2021

20:14:38

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN.732/2021

Page 2 of 8

FIR was lodged only at 6.36 AM on 18^th December, 2020 with the alleged

contraband being in possession of the raiding team all this time. Further the

case of the investigating agency is that the petitioner reached the Court at

2.00 PM when the thumb marks of the wife of the petitioner were taken on

the arrest memo however, the arrest memo had been prepared at 11.45 AM

and thus admittedly, at that time no intimation was sent to the family of the

petitioner thereby violating the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported as AIR 1997 SC 610 D.K. Basu vs. State of West

Bengal. This is despite the fact that the petitioner’s residence is at Suiwalan,

Turkman Gate, Delhi which is close to office of the Crime Branch at Darya

Ganj where the petitioner was kept the whole night as per the prosecution.

Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Search

of the co-accused has been taken by a lady constable Janita Meena who was

not authorised to take the search. Reliance in this regard is placed on the

decisions reported as 1989 (1) Crimes 314 State vs. Jagmala Ram; 1994

Crl.J. 3702 State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh; 1995 Crl.J. 875 Chhotu vs.

The site plan was purportedly prepared on the next day when no witness was

present and cannot be looked into. The petitioner was in fact lifted from his

house and falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has clean

antecedents and is not involved in any offence whatsoever prior to this case.

Further the alleged recovery from the petitioner is also of intermediate

quantity and hence the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are not applicable.

3.

Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the site

Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE

MUKTA GUPTA

Signing Date:01.06.2021

20:14:38

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN.732/2021

Page 3 of 8

plan was prepared when SI Arvind along with the Investigating Officer went

to the spot. The allegations that the petitioner was picked up from the house

and falsely implicated are baseless. The CDR of the petitioner shows his

connection with the co-accused. Search of the co-accused was taken by the

woman constable in the presence of the ACP and SI Arvind who constituted

the raiding team. Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act stand complied with

and hence no case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.

The above noted FIR was registered after a secret information w