The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Hanif vs NCB consisting of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar dismissed a bail application as there was no change in the circumstances since dismissal of the previous bail application.
Facts
A parcel was booked in the name of Abdul Rehman, which was intercepted and seized at Gatwick Airport, UK. The Narcotics Control Bureau received a request from National Crime Agency UK for controlled delivery of said parcel. Director General NCB authorised Zonal Director, DZU further authorised Sh. Rajeev Sehrawat, IO to undertake the controlled delivery in coordination of NCA, UK as per the provisions of section 50A, NDPS Act. The Parcel was received by authorised I.O. at New Delhi. Further, controlled delivery operation was undertaken in coordination with DHL Courier Staff. The consignee/accused received the parcel, at that moment he was intercepted and upon enquiry he revealed that he had received the said parcel on instructions of Mohd. Hanif (Petitioner herein) in the presence of public witnesses. On further inquiry, accused Hanif revealed that he received the said parcel on instructions of Bartholomew Okoh @ Prince in the presence of public witnesses, who was then intercepted while taking the delivery of the said parcel of controlled delivery operation. On checking the said parcel, 500 grams of Cocaine was recovered from the foot massager concealed in two round shaped packets. The contraband was seized as per procedure. Hence, the instant Case u/s 21/23/29 of the NDPS Act was lodged.
Contentions Made
Appellant: Petitioner has been falsely implicated and is in judicial custody for about 4 years 9 month. He was arrested only on the pointing out of other co-accused (Accused no. 3) Abdul Rehman herein and no actual contraband was recovered from him. Apart from retracted confession of accused persons, there is no material or evidence against him, moreover, the present case is of a control delivery, which has not been undertaken by an authorized person as section 50A stipulates that it is the Director General of NCB, or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf who may undertake control delivery of any consignment. However, the control delivery was undertaken by Shri Rajeev Sehrawat IO. Reliance was placed on Tofan Singh vs. state of Tamil Nadu.
Respondent: Petitioner along with other accused persons admittedly indulged in trafficking/import and possession of contraband in conspiracy with each other and thus, the embargo u/s 37 NDPS Act shall be applicable. Moreover, they are crucial witnesses in the case who are yet to be examined under trial. Voluntary statements tendered u/s 67 NDPS Act have been written by accused in their own handwriting as per which, petitioner has admitted to being in constant touch with the other two co-accused for obtaining delivery of said parcel. The previous bail application of present petitioner/accused was dismissed by this Court. All the contentions raised by the petitioner herein have already been dealt with by this court in the previous order and dealing with the same would be an abuse of process of law. Since the trial is yet to conclude, any observations qua the evidential facts of the case shall vitiate the sanctity of criminal-trial proceedings. Reliance was placed on State of Kerala Etc. vs. Rajesh Etc., Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira and Union of India vs. Rattan Malik.
Observations of the Court and Judgment
The Bench observed that all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner had already been dealt with and comprehensively discussed and findings in this regard had also been given by this Court.
The contentions raised in the present matter were the same as the contentions raised in the previous bail application, which were already discussed. There was no change in the circumstances since dismissal of the previous bail application except for the fact that one more year has elapsed. Hence, being devoid of any merit, the bail application stood dismissed.
Case Name: Mohd. Hanif vs National Crime Bureau
Citation: BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1339 OF 2021
Bench: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Decided on: 12th April 2022
Picture Source :
