High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed by the petitioner under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail under Sections 20 & 29 NDPS ACT registered at Police Station NCB.
Brief Facts:
On secret information accused Raghav Sehajpal, Krishan Chand and Ram Lal were apprehended and from the possession of accused Raghav 220 gm of charas was recovered and two parcels containing 399 and 925 gm of charas were recovered from Kishan Chand and Rs. 65000/- were recovered from accused Ram Lal. It is further alleged that accused persons in their statements under Section 67 NDPS Act admitted their involvement. The accused Raghav Sehajpal in his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act has disclosed the name of the present petitioner and his mobile number. The co-accused Raghav disclosed that he used to get the contraband through Kale Ram through conductors and drivers who sometimes used to give money in cash and sometimes used to deposit money in HDFC bank accounts. It is further alleged that many transactions were found to have taken place between accused Raghav and petitioner Kale Ram and accused/petitioner Kale Ram disclosed in his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act that he gave five packets to Kishan Chand and Ram Lal with instructions to give the packets to Raghav Sehejpal.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused are on regular bail. He further submitted that the petitioner did not possess any contraband, and he is charged with conspiracy with co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the petitioner has deep roots in the society and has family to support. As per the allegations in the complaint, the element of conspiracy with the other co-accused person is missing. He further submitted that the bank slips which are exhibited in the court are not bearing the signature of co- accused Raghav and different signatures are appearing on them.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the verification of the bank account of present petitioner shows that number of transactions have taken place between both and the said fact is also corroborated through the statements under Section 67 NDPS Act of the accused persons. He further submitted that there is an entire chain including the drivers, and conductors involved in the trade. The petitioner Kale Ram is the main accused who used to deal in the contraband through the other co-accused, and there is a recovery of commercial quantity of charas in this case. He further submitted that at this stage, the court is not supposed to prejudge the evidence and the petitioner is unable to show even prima facie that he is not guilty of such offence and also that there is an embargo u/s 37 of the NDPS Act in granting bail to the petitioner.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that there is no recovery of any contraband from the petitioner and as per the prosecution no amount has been recovered from his bank account. HC stated that as far as the question of voluntary statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is concerned, in the absence of any recovery of any drugs from the petitioner, it will be a debatable issue whether the disclosure statement made by the co-accused is admissible against the him or not.
HC opined that requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the said offence. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner has been involved in any case of similar nature.
HC relied upon the case of Ranjit Singh Brahmajeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra wherein while referring to an identically worded provision under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999, the Supreme Court held that the satisfaction is with regard to likelihood of not committing the offence under the Act and not any offence whatsoever.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.03.2015, he is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the concerned Trial Court.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Case Title: Kale Ram @ Kalu Ram v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 3045/2019
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
