Delhi High Court
Gurpal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 11 August, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No.461/2008
% Date of Decision: 11.08.2008
Gurpal Singh .... Petitioner
Through Mr.K.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.M.L. Yadav, Advocate
Versus
State of Delhi .... Respondent
Through Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. The brief facts are that on 10th May, 2007, on the
basis of secrete information that one Paramjeet Singh, a native of
District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, along with Gurpal Singh, petitioner,
will supply smack and opium to different persons, a raid was
conducted. Petitioner, who was driving the car, came out and after
looking here and there went back to the driver's seat. Thereafter the
other occupant of the car, Mr.Paramjeet Singh, came out with a bag and
a yellow colour tin in his hand, and he was apprehended.
From Mr. Paramjeet Singh 14.500 kilograms of opium and 750
grams of smack were recovered. Nothing had been recovered from the
petitioner. The challan has already been filed and learned counsel for
the petitioner contends that no specific role has been assigned to the
petitioner. The learned counsel for the State also does not deny that no
specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in the Challan.
The petitioner is stated to be the driver only and there are no
such circumstances to reflect that he was involved with the other
occupant of the car, the co-accused, from whom the commercial
quantity of the Narcotic substances were recovered. It is apparent that
the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the offending articles.
When an application for Bail is under the consideration of the
Court and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted, it is
incumbent upon this Court to examine as to whether there exist
reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the
offense charged. This consideration has to be on the basis of the
material available on the date on which the application for bail is
considered. Moreover the satisfaction recorded by the Court at this
stage is only a prima facie view and would not affect the consideration
of the case by the trial Court. On a consideration of the circumstances
and the materials there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
petitioner is not guilty of the offence charged.
The petitioner is stated to be the driver of the vehicle from which
the co-accused was arrested with narcotic substances. The petitioner
has no criminal antecedents and this has not been controverted by the
respondent.
In this view of the matter I find that the necessary requirement of
section 37 has been fulfilled and therefore this is a fit case in which the
petitioner is to be released on bail. Accordingly I hold that the petitioner
is entitled for bail. Consequently, the petitioner be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The
petitioner shall not try to influence any of the witnesses in any manner.
The petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the
Court Master of this Court.
August 11th , 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'
