Amrik Singh vs State
1991 Latest Caselaw 724 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) HEARD. The case registered against the applicant Amrik Singh is under Section 21/29 read with Section 23 of the Ndps Act. As per the case of the prosecution, on 18.9.1987 heroine weighing 9.7 kgs was recovered packed in two ghee tins of Indana and Milk Food from 36-A, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of which Shri Yudhishtar, J.M. Malhotra, Manju Narula and Anil Kumar Gandhi and Surinder Malhotra were arrested and a complaint was filed against these persons sometime in September, 1987. The accused Amrik Singh though mentioned in that complaint was not made accused because as per the prosecution version he was not arrested and it was only in June, 1989 that he was apprehended at imperial Hotel, New Delhi. His statement was recorded on 27.6.89 in which he specifically stated that in the last week of August 87 and In the first week of September, 87 Jindo Malhotra had sought to meet him and asked him to supply heroine and he was also paid Rs, 20,000.00 as advance. He had supplied ten kg heroine in the first week of September, 1987 and he had brought this heroine in the door panel of an ambassador car and that he was paid Ra.2,50,000.00 . On the basis of the statement of this applicant Amrik Singh supported by the statement of Shri J.M Malhotra, Yudhishtar Kumar and Anil Gandhi, a separate complaint was filed against him and one Kamal Manku on 28,8.1989 for the said offences under the Ndps Act. The plea taken by the applicant is that fact that he was not made accused in the earlier complaint is sufficient to show that no case is made out against him. His statement was obtained under duress and third degree methods.

(2) My attention has been drawn towards earlier order of this Court In Cr. M(M) 2740/90 which was moved for bail by this very accused which was dismissed on 29.11.90. No new facts have been brought to my notice entitling the petitioner to be released on ball in a case of Ndps Act. The minimum sentence provided for the alleged offence is ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs I lakh which may lie extend to twenty years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. Section 37 of the Ndps Act provides that no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of five years or more shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been give an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that th(:ie are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The limitation on granting bail specified under clauses (b) of sub-Section (i) are in addition to the limitation under Cr.P.C. The special Counsel for Ncb opposes the application on the ground that it is very serious offence and this accused is not entitled to be bailed out particularly when no new facts have come. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 of the Ndps Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ncb v. Kishan Lal and Others, 1991 (1)J.T. 258,1 do not find any ground for admitting the accused on bail. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.