The present case was registered on the 19th of January 2019, where it was stated that when the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) team reached the Office of Apex Courier, Delhi located at Mahipalpur Bypass Road, the manager of the office informed the NCB team about the parcel that had arrived from Agra which contained medicines including Zolpidem and Alprazolam Tablets. The parcel was to be delivered to one Mr Ajay Mahipal. The parcel was ceased by the NCB team. The investigating agency then detained the petitioner on the 23rd of January 2019 for investigation and was arrested on the 25th of the same month for the offences punishable under Section 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act. However, he was released on interim bail on the 10th of April 2019, which continued till the 2nd of July 2019 due to the medical condition of his wife and old age of his parents. The present petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 439 of CrPC for grant of bail to which the Delhi HC allowed the bail application.
Arguments for the Petitioner
It was contended by the petitioner that when the investigating agency raided petitioner’s house on the 29th of January 2019, no contraband was recovered which pointed out that the petitioner was not in the conscious possession of the contraband. Moreover, the investigating agency could not prove any direct case against the petitioner.
It was further argued that the petitioner was neither the consignor nor the consignee of the concerned parcel. It was pointed out that the petitioner was nowhere connected with the consignment in question except for the bare allegation made by Dr Brij Bhushan Bansal, who himself is the accused in the present case. It was then submitted by the counsel that three raids were conducted at the residence and the office of the petitioner and no incriminating evidence was found at the places. The alleged seizure was made at the Apex Courier and the petitioner was not even present at the Apex Courier office when the raid was made by the NCB. It was further submitted that there was nothing on record which pointed out that the petitioner had ever purchased any of the concerned medicines.
The counsel submitted the professional background of the petitioner, who is an Ex-Army Officer and has also been associated with Operation Shaurya, a counter-insurgency operation in North East. It was further highlighted that the petitioner did not have any criminal history, and the case was made against him with malafide and mischievous intention. The counsel pointed out that previously at various occasions interim bail has been granted to the petitioner and it is clearly established that petitioner has never misused or violated his interim bail and diligently obeyed the orders of the court of law.
The petitioner relied upon the cases of Kashmir Singh v. NCB, Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Dalip Singh Langda v. The State (NCT of Delhi) to emphasise upon their case.
Arguments for the Respondent
It was contended by the respondent that if the petitioner did not meet the embargo of section 37 of the NDPS Act, there would remain a likelihood that petitioner would indulge in the same kind of activities which are detrimental to the interest of society at large. It was further submitted by the respondent that the petitioner was actively involved in abetment and criminal conspiracy for the commission of the offence, in this case, thereby in constructive and conscious possession of the seized contraband.
Delhi HC Allows Bail Application
The honourable High Court referred to the cases of Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Mohd. Ramzan v. State (NCT of Delhi). The court observed that petitioner has nowhere admitted that drugs were being sent by him and in fact, the statement of petitioner would prove that he was never in the mental state of illegal trafficking of drugs. The NCB has at few stances twisted the statements given by the petitioner and his sister. The court further observed that from the record it cannot be established that the petitioner was connected with the consignment. The allegations were put upon the petitioner by the accused himself and the disclosure statement of accused is not admissible in law against another co-accused unless and until it is substantiated by recovery/material on record. The court was of the view that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner and since the present order was being passed in a bail application, the petitioner is to be granted bail. The honourable court passed the order that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.