The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), observing that the recovery from him was of intermediate quantity and that there was no prima facie evidence showing he had knowledge of the larger recovery from the co-accused.
Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that as per the nominal Roll, the accused had been in custody for 1 year and 5 months, and that his jail conduct was satisfactory. The Nominal Roll also reflected that he had not been previously involved in any other crime and had clean antecedents. Moreover, there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The prosecution had also not raised any objection regarding the accused being a flight risk. It was further held that since the recovery from the accused was of 332 grams of Charas, an intermediate quantity, the bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.
The accused contended that he had clean antecedents, with no involvement in any other criminal case and that the secret information received by the Crime Branch, which formed the basis of the raid, was specifically in relation to the co-accused and not him. He further claimed that his name did not feature in the secret input, nor was he under surveillance prior to the alleged incident. He also pointed out that he had already spent about 1.5 years in custody, the charges were yet to be framed, and there was no indication of when the trial would conclude. Since he was not required for further investigation, he sought to be released on regular bail.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accused was not a passive recipient but an active participant in the narcotics transaction. It was alleged that he had placed an order for approximately 1 kilogram of Charas from the co-accused and had also transferred ₹2,24,000 in advance to the co-accused’s bank account in furtherance of the said deal.
Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail to the accused, subject to conditions like furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety, reporting to the Crime Branch every week, and not leaving Delhi without prior permission.It also clarified that the observations made in the order are only for deciding this bail plea and shouldn’t be seen as comments on the merits of the case.
Appearances:
Mr. R.S. Kundu, Mr. Manu Bakshi, Ms. Shagun Khurana, and Mr. Nitesh Shokeen, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State, with SI Sanjeev Gupta, PS Crime Branch, Delhi.
