Mohd Sakeel vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2005 Latest Caselaw 632 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing was recovered from the petitioner nor was anything recovered pursuant to any disclosure statement on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the Section 67 of the NDPS Act statements purportedly made by the petitioner, he has nowhere admitted having knowledge of the contents of parcels which were recovered at the New Delhi Railway Station.

2. The case for the prosecution is that a secret information was received that certain parcels shown as electronic goods were to be transported from Muzaffar Nagar to Delhi on the Lachhivi Express which was scheduled to arrive on 26.02.2003 at 4.02 a.m. at New Delhi. The information was that these parcels were actually to contain Ganja. The train arrived on 26.02.2003. The parcels were unloaded and were identified by the NCB officers. It was found that two persons claimed the said parcels which were 5 in number. The two persons, who claimed these parcels, were Mohd Safeed Alam and Vijayan. The said persons had gate passes for five parcels as well as the bilties authorising them to collect the same. Two of the parcels had been placed on a thela and these two persons were overpowered on the spot and these parcels were taken into custody by the officers of the NCB. These two parcels were later on found to have contained 77 Kgs. of Ganja in total. It was later on disclosed that the other three parcels, which were lying on platform No. 11, did not contain any contraband and only contained the electronic goods as indicated. When these two persons were questioned as to on whose behalf the parcels were collected, they disclosed the name of the present petitioner, Mohd Sakeel and they informed the NCB officers that the petitioner could be found near Shop No. 356, Lajpatrai Market. A team was constituted and the petitioner was found at Lajpatrai Market and was taken to Platform No. 11. Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were purportedly recorded of the said two persons Mohd Safeed and Vijayan as well as the petitioner.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said two persons, despite having been found to be in possession of the contraband, have not been proceeded against, whereas the petitioner, who was not found to be in possession of the same, has been proceeded against. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge against the petitioner has been framed under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel drew my attention to the said provision which clearly indicates that a person, who is to fall under the ambit of the said provision, must be one who "produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses/cannabis". According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even the case for the prosecution does not disclose that the petitioner produced, manufactured, sold, purchased or transported the contraband. It may be a case where the prosecution may submit that the petitioner imported the said contraband inter-State. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is also not apparent from the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although there is an alleged recovery of 77 Kgs. of Ganja, it is from the two persons and not from the petitioner. Furthermore, the recovery is not on the basis of any disclosure made by the petitioner. He finally submitted that although in view of the recovery, it may be argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play, even then there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty of any offence and that there is no likelihood of him committing any such offence while on bail. Therefore, even if the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, the petitioner would be entitled to bail.

4. Mr Satish Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the State, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the said two parcels which were found to contain 77 kgs. of Ganja, were collected on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, it can safely be said that the petitioner is guilty of the offence for which he has been charged and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the State, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. The learned counsel for the State drew my attention to the contents of complaint and particularly to paragraph b, c & d thereof which read as under:-

"b) In his voluntary statements dated 26.2.2003 and 27.2.2003, tendered under section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985, the accused admitted the aforesaid recovery, seizure and his concern with the seized ganja and also named one Jawahar, to whom he was to deliver the parcels.

c) In his voluntary statements dated 26.2.2003 and 27.2.2003, tendered under section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985, Mohd. Safeed Alam admitted the aforesaid recovery and seizure, in his presence, as detailed in the panchnama, but denied his concern or knowledge with the seized ganja.

d) In voluntary statement dated 26.2.2003, tendered under section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985, Mr. Vijayan admitted the aforesaid recovery and seizure, in his presence, as detailed in the panchnama, but denied his concern or knowledge with the seized ganja."

5. The learned counsel for the State referred to these paragraphs to indicate that Mohd Safeed Alam and Vijayan had denied their concern or knowledge with the seized Ganja and, therefore, they are not being proceeded against. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the contents of sub-paragraph 'b' as quoted above, indicates that purportedly two voluntary statements were made on 26.02.2003 and 27.02.2003 and in those statements, the petitioner had stated that the parcels were to be taken possession of and released from the railway authorities at the behest of one Jawahar, to whom the said parcels were ultimately to be delivered.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to this portion of the complaint, drew my attention to the contents of the purported statements to show that the case of the present petitioner is not at all distinct or different from that of Mohd Safeed Alam and Vijayan in the sense that in the purported statements made by the petitioner, he has also not indicated any knowledge of the seized contraband. Moreover, he has also clearly stated that it is not he who was the ultimate recipient. It was also stated that the petitioner was merely a labourer and did commission work for arranging the receipt and delivery of the parcels without knowledge of the contents thereof and by doing so earning Rs. 100-150/- per day.

7. In these circumstance, it does appear to me that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is also not guilty of having committed the offence for which he has been charged. No criminal antecedent of the petitioner has been pointed out and, therefore, it is clear that there is no likelihood of the petitioner committing any offence while on bail. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail and, accordingly, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

8. Although in matters for grant of bail, a detailed discussion of the facts and circumstances is not necessary, however, in cases coming under Section 37, it becomes necessary for the court to record its satisfaction whether there are reasonable doubts for believing that the offence has been committed or not. It, however, goes without saying that all the observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and will not come in the way of either of the parties at the time of the trial.

The application stands disposed of.

dusty.

The trial court record be sent back immediately.